Hugo Chavez

[Comrade B]

There have been a lot of posts regarding the man recently, and I was wanting to see a poll to see just how many people are for or against him in this community.

I personally support the majority of his decisions, though I wish he were more radical.

[trivas7]

There have been a lot of posts regarding the man recently, and I was wanting to see a poll to see just how many people are for or against him in this community.

I personally support the majority of his decisions, though I wish he were more radical.
Agreed. My sense is he is politically unformed and immaturely cannot separate his personal ambitions from his political leanings.

[spartan]

He plays a bizzare balancing act whilst trying to get as much support as possible for his reforms (Which is probably why he doesnt just place everything under state control because of the fear of a negative reaction both at home and abroad).

He is a breath of fresh air considering the free market politics which have dominated most of the world since the fall of the USSR, but you just get the impression that he isnt allowing things to go far enough.

I support him though that doesnt mean i wont critiscise any bad decisions he makes nor does it mean that i think that his unique approach to implememting his brand of Socialism is necessarily the right one (As it doesnt go far enough IMO).

Chavez has got to start worrying less about what the media thinks of his actions and instead start doing more to empower the Venezuelan and Latin American Proletariat or else he will quickly lose support and the Socialist movement in Venezuelan could be split into those favouring Reformism (Chavez) and those favouring the immediate empowerment of the Proletariat and the implementation of a Socialist economic system.

If that happens then i fear that it will only help the US backed opposition who will present a united front against a divided and split Socialist movement.

[dirtycommiebastard]

I believe the correct position is to critically support him, even though he is only a reformist. He is undoubtedly very well intentioned, and has changed a lot in terms of improving the lives of the workers.

Until a clear cut revolutionary leadership is formed though, he is the choice of the masses, and the workers look to him to resolve their issues.


Chavez has got to start worrying less about what the media thinks of his actions and instead start doing more to empower the Venezuelan and Latin American Proletariat or else he will quickly lose support and the Socialist movement in Venezuelan could be split into those favouring Reformism (Chavez) and those favouring the immediate empowerment of the Proletariat and the implementation of a Socialist economic system.

If that happens then i fear that it will only help the US backed opposition who will present a united front against a divided and split Socialist movement.

Agreed as well.

[Comrade B]

It frustrates me as well when I hear his reactions to the media. He should base his decisions on what the people want, not what the international (western) media thinks of him.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

He's just a bourgeois politician, but his actions have been mostly favorable to the Venezuelan working class, have allowed for the organization of workers, and has generally strengthened the working class movement, even though Hugo himself isn't part of it, I think.

[piet11111]

i am unsure about him he clearly did things that really benefited the working people but he only did it because he absolutely had to do so.

he is in my opinion rapidly becoming an anchor to the Venezuelan left.

[Comrade B]

He certainly has given a stronger voice to far left resistance to the United States in the region.

[abrupt]

He has done, and still is doing great things. I think he could be doing a lot better, but he has many bureaucratic issues in his government. I don't like seeing Pedro Carmona and others walking the streets free.

I support the majority of the decisions, but there are still issues that need to be worked on.

[nvm]

Where is critical support!!!!?
I voted the majority of decisions instead.
I think the IMT is doing a great job in Venezuela .
Chavez and the Venezuelans have been reading some Trotsky thanks to the IMT and that could have influenced his recent decisions about nationalization.

[BIG BROTHER]

I support him critically.

Like any good politician he has personal ambitions, and you could clasiffy him as a populist or a reformist. Nevertheless he is against united states Imperialism, and has given the Venezuelan proletariat various gains that come from the fact that he's using the oil to pay social programs.

Also his "Bolivarian revolution" has started into inclining Latin-America towards the left.

[Saorsa]

I critically support him. The Bolviarian Revolution has mobilised, militarised and empowered the workers of Venezuela, and has raised their horizons greatly. Chavez has distributed arms to the workers, organised community councils, and used his country's wealth for the benefit of his country's people.

However, he has not overturned capitalist property relations on a large scale, and remains a reformist, albeit a militant and even revolutionary one (contradiction in terms I know :lol:). And what's more, I feel that the revolution in Venezuela is starting to run out of steam a wee bit, and contradictions are starting to emerge from within it.

Chavez appears to have taken the line that because of the referendum defeat, the revolution in Venezuela needs to slow down and moderate. I think that's totally the wrong approach. The only reason he lost the referendum is because 3 million Chavistas didn't turn out to support him - the No vote was no larger than the vote against him in the last presidential elections.

Unless the government starts to take a more radical, confrontational apprach that delivers real results to workers in terms of their living standards and their political and economic empowerment, it's likely to lose workers support, and the current rend of workers starting to show less enthusiasm for the Bolivarian Revolution will continue to the point of Chavez's demise, which I think would be a very sad thing for Venezuela, Latin America and the world.

[DancingLarry]

The Jesus Chanel is heaven scent?

[Justin CF]

Some people have been complaining about Chavez being too much of a reformist. I don't think this is necessarily the case.

While clearly defined revolutionary action may be helpful in some cases, it can also be hurtful in others. I've heard Chavez make remarks which indicate that he supports revolutionary action in some cases, sees the way that the economy is set up in Venezuela as being deeply flawed, and recognizes that he hasn't been able to do enough to change the situation. This makes me think he would support a true revolution if the need should arise.

The thing is, I don't know enough about Venezuela to say what path it needs to take right now. I probably know more than the average American, but that's not saying much. Chavez, on the other hand, does, and for the reasons spelled out above I'm willing to accept his judgment on this one for now. That's not to say that I'm not willing to listen to opposing viewpoints (which I'm sure will be presented), it's just that I have more trust in his knowledge of Venezuela's politics than my own.

[Saorsa]

I agree totally that we shouldn't be telling the Venezuelan's how to run their own revolution, but my views on the matter aren't just taken out of thin air. These are the views of Marxist currents within his own party, who are criticising Chavez for not moving ahead fast enough.

[Zurdito]

none of these apply. Chavez is like a Kerensky. We support him against the right, but we have to build to overthrow him.

it's not a question of making a "moral judgement" on him, a mans social being defines his existence. Chavez is a balancing act between the classes, he is a bourgeois general trying to keep order in a revolutionary situation, a situation of dual power. therefore, he does progressive and reactionary things. the end goal is to replace him with a workers government.

[KC]

While clearly defined revolutionary action may be helpful in some cases, it can also be hurtful in others. I've heard Chavez make remarks which indicate that he supports revolutionary action in some cases, sees the way that the economy is set up in Venezuela as being deeply flawed, and recognizes that he hasn't been able to do enough to change the situation. This makes me think he would support a true revolution if the need should arise.

Capitalism exists. The need is there.

His hands aren't tied, they are idle.

[Justin CF]

I agree totally that we shouldn't be telling the Venezuelan's how to run their own revolution, but my views on the matter aren't just taken out of thin air. These are the views of Marxist currents within his own party, who are criticising Chavez for not moving ahead fast enough.That's interesting. I've never heard this before, so I tried googling a number of different terms, but all I'm getting is attacks on Marxists/socialists/communists rather than attacks from Marxists directed at Chavez. Do you know anything else about this?

[Justin CF]

Capitalism exists. The need is there.This can be said about most countries, and it's true. But this doesn't mean that the revolution would be accepted by the people, and if it's not accepted by the people then it doesn't serve any purpose. If a revolution were to take place in the US right now I seriously doubt that it would do any good, simply because it wouldn't be accepted by the people. I can't say the same about Venezuela, but I can't say the opposite, either.


His hands aren't tied, they are idle.If I thought this was true, I would agree with you completely. The thing is, I really don't know if it is.

[KC]

This can be said about most countries, and it's true. But this doesn't mean that the revolution would be accepted by the people

So when "the people" take over factories and run them themselves, do you think they are ready for it (Sanitarios Maracay, for example)?

[Justin CF]

So when "the people" take over factories and run them themselves, do you think they are ready for it (Sanitarios Maracay, for example)?Sanitarios Maracay would be a sign that the people may be ready, but it wouldn't be a definitive by any means. If similar things started happening all over Venezuela (much like the events in France during May of 1968), or even if public opinion polling suggested that worker control over factories was widely accepted as a good thing, I think you would have a much stronger case. Honestly, I don't know whether or not this is happening as of now.

[Zurdito]

Sanitarios Maracay would be a sign that the people may be ready, but it wouldn't be a definitive by any means. If similar things started happening all over Venezuela (much like the events in France during May of 1968), or even if public opinion polling suggested that worker control over factories was widely accepted as a good thing, I think you would have a much stronger case. Honestly, I don't know whether or not this is happening as of now.

Revolutionary events like May 1968 don't just happen as some objective process. You need a leadership. If Chavez is able to successfully nip factory occupations in the bud, then the momentum won't spread, and of course it's unlikely that you will get mass opinion polls showing supprot for factory occupations, or mass moblisations for further gains, because people will just say "look what happened to the guys at Sanitarios".

However, if factory occupations are succesful and encouraged, then, regardless fo what the public mood was before they happened, the mood adapts to the new atmosphere of a vibrant, succesful workers movement.

This is why it's no good to just say "Chavez responds to peoples consciousness at the time"...that's what all reformists do, many reformists are popular with the masses, while keeping the vanguard from successfully taking a lead of the movement.

Our obective is for revolutioanries to take the leadership of the Venezuelan masses, not by saying what is popular now, but by building victory upon victory, and by doing what today what the masses will do tomorrow.

I repeat, the revolution is not an objective process that we just follow along like fish in a stream: revolutions are made by a good leadership of the class which leads the class to victories so that the fighting mood spreads as more and mroe workers are convinced that they can win if they fight, and as we squeeze capitalism to make it weaker.

[InTheMatterOfBoots]

Militarist populist whose government enacts widespread oppression of autonomous activists and the Venezuelan anarchists. utter bastard.

http://www.iaf-ifa.org/news/venezuela/venezuela_solidarity_en.html

[Yehuda Stern]

Hugo Chavez is a bourgeois populist, a classic Bonaparte, the kind which the workers of Latin America have experienced dozens of times in the past, whose reign has always either evolved to dictatorship (MNR in Bolivia, Peron in Argentina) or, through its demoralization of the workers, paved the way for a right-wing coup (Chile after Allende, to take one example of many). Chavez is no different.

Chavez's anti-worker policies have not become explicit yet, though there are already signs - the oppression of the workers of Sanitarios Maracay, the dismissal of Orlando Chirino from the UNT, a grave warning for Venezuelan workers who understand the need for independence from the class appartus, etc. But for ten years, Chavez has given the masses almost nothing but rhetoric, relying more and more on the army and state apparatus. This state of affairs will not last forever.

It is also interesting, though not at all surprising, to note that the most pro-Chavez left groups, notably the International Marxist Tendency of Alan Woods (and Ted Grant before his death), have for the most part not even mentioned the 'small' detail of Chirinos' expulsion.

[Herman]

Militarist populist


Hugo Chavez is a bourgeois populist, a classic Bonaparte

Define me "Populist". Explain why "militarist", "bourgeois" and "Bonaparte".


Chavez's anti-worker policies have not become explicit yet, though there are already signs - the oppression of the workers of Sanitarios Maracay,

Wrong.

http://www.aporrea.org/trabajadores/a27359.html


the dismissal of Orlando Chirino from the UNT, a grave warning for Venezuelan workers who understand the need for independence from the class appartus, etc.

Apart from the fact that he actively wanted the "NO" vote for the constitutional reform referendum.


But for ten years, Chavez has given the masses almost nothing but rhetoric, relying more and more on the army and state apparatus.

They say ignorance is bliss. You must be in heaven then.

http://www.gobiernoenlinea.ve/miscelaneas/misiones.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolivarian_Missions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_Communal_Councils

http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/americas/venezuela/communalcouncils.html


It is also interesting, though not at all surprising, to note that the most pro-Chavez left groups, notably the International Marxist Tendency of Alan Woods (and Ted Grant before his death), have for the most part not even mentioned the 'small' detail of Chirinos' expulsion.

They have, and if you had bothered to check, you would have seen that the IMT does mention several times Orlando Chirino and his expulsion.

[Yehuda Stern]

Populist - Chavez's rhetoric deals with "rich against poor," not class war. He throws in some of that for his leftist cheerleaders too, but that's not the content of his politics. His government contains many capitalists to this day, and is supported by a substantial minority of the ruling class.

Bourgeois - Other than the already mentioned support for him among certain circles of the Venezuelan bourgeoisie, Chavez himself belongs to the state apparatus, being a former lieutenant colonel.

Bonaparte - A Bonapratist is a politician who attempts to appear to be 'above classes' and sometimes leans on the masses for support against parts of the ruling class, but in the end serves the interests of that class.

(I never said 'Militarist')

In refutation to my claims, you have given me:

1. An article in Spanish, a language that I do not understand;
2. A justification for the fact that the Venezuelan state has intervened in a working class organization, setting a dangerous precedent for the future;
3. A bunch of articles showcasing Chavez's reforms, which are, especially in the face of right-wing sabotage, completely meaningless, i.e. you have merely helped my claim that he is a reformist;
4. A claim that the IMT has mentioned Chirino's expulsion, which is not true, at least not up to when I checked several months ago, without citations. If they have, they certainly haven't condemned this dictatorial move.

This is a poor balance sheet. Sure you don't want to try again?

[Herman]

Populist - Chavez's rhetoric deals with "rich against poor," not class war.The essence of class war is the fight between the rich and the poor. Or have you ever seen the oppressed class as rich, and the oppressors as poor? As far as i'm concerned, every marxist is a populist.


He throws in some of that for his leftist cheerleaders too, but that's not the content of his politics. His government contains many capitalists to this day, and is supported by a substantial minority of the ruling class.Who are these "capitalists"? Which firms do they own? And how is he supported by a substantial minority of the ruling class? Do you have evidence?

No, you don't. None of the ministers are "capitalists", in the sense that they own capital.


Bourgeois - Other than the already mentioned support for him among certain circles of the Venezuelan bourgeoisie, Chavez himself belongs to the state apparatus, being a former lieutenant colonel. He was a former military officer, true. However, if you have studied the history of Venezuela, you will notice that things are very different referring to culture. If you have read anything about Chavez, you will also know that he participated in a leftist military rebellion against the government of Carlos Andres Perez. The military, leftist? Yes, it is possible, especially given the history of Venezuela and its military culture. If you don't believe me, just look at other examples in Europe: Portugal during the Carnation Revolution.


Bonaparte - A Bonapratist is a politician who attempts to appear to be 'above classes' and sometimes leans on the masses for support against parts of the ruling class, but in the end serves the interests of that class.Then by your definition, he is not a bonapartiste, since the ruling class hates him. Have you ever seen any evidence of support for his policies from the national ruling class?


(I never said 'Militarist')I was referring to the poster above you.


In refutation to my claims, you have given me:

1. An article in Spanish, a language that I do not understand;That's your problem.


2. A justification for the fact that the Venezuelan state has intervened in a working class organization, setting a dangerous precedent for the future;How is it wrong for the state to aid the workers? As long as the state is in the hands of a socialist government, then it's alright. Similar to Lenin in fact.


3. A bunch of articles showcasing Chavez's reforms, which are, especially in the face of right-wing sabotage, completely meaningless, i.e. you have merely helped my claim that he is a reformist;The bolivarian missions are meaningless? The communal councils are meaningless? Are you on crack? And why is it wrong to be a reformist or to support reformist pro-working class policies?


4. A claim that the IMT has mentioned Chirino's expulsion, which is not true, at least not up to when I checked several months ago, without citations. If they have, they certainly haven't condemned this dictatorial move.http://venezuela.elmilitante.org/content/view/6163/171/

And no, they haven't condemned "this dictatorial move" as you call it. It is well known that Chirino is an ultra-leftist orthodox trotskyist (at least he claims to be). He has consistenly been a sectarian leftist incapable of compromising with the other currents in the UNT.


This is a poor balance sheet. Sure you don't want to try again?Perhaps you should provide sources for your claims, since you haven't done so and it's "innocent until proven guilty".

[ricardofire]

I think His Blood is Red, but i think his balls are a sheepish pale yellow...he needs a push in my eyes.

[Louis Pio]

And no, they haven't condemned "this dictatorial move" as you call it. It is well known that Chirino is an ultra-leftist orthodox trotskyist (at least he claims to be). He has consistenly been a sectarian leftist incapable of compromising with the other currents in the UNT.


Good point, Chirino even opposed the factory occupations because "we had a capitalist society" or something to that extent. So in reality he wasn't putting forward any solutions, this always happens with ultraleft secterians, they become a hinderance for any revolutionary development.

[Leo]

The essence of class war is the fight between the rich and the poor.

This is a very ignorant statement. The essence of class war is the fight between the workers and the rulers, not some wage concept such as the poor an the rich.


Who are these "capitalists"? Which firms do they own? And how is he supported by a substantial minority of the ruling class? Do you have evidence?

They are commonly reffered as the Boliburguesía, I believe, Bolivarians who drives new Hummers and Audis, and who flies private aircrafts. A prominent fella among those folks is Wilmer Ruperti, a leading player in Venezuela's billion-dollar oil business. Today Ruperti's company is one of the top shipping operators for the state oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela, or PDVSA, and has accumulated a fortune -- enough to reportedly spend $1.6 million at a recent auction at Christie's for two pistols once owned by Simón Bolívar. Involvement of lots of top Venezuelan businessmen in the Maletinazo scandal also indicates important things, and the connection between Antonini Wilson and the Proarepa food company, now part of a mission, owned by Sarkis Arslanian Beyloune and Ricardo Fernández Barrueco. It is important to note that Proarepa was in charge of the food distribution during Venezuela's oil strike of 2002, when Chávez signed important contracts for food distribution. This company is part of "Misson Mercal" right now.

In this "21st century socialist" Venezuela, sales of Audi cars are up 25 percent since last year, according to local Audi representative Federico Baeza. Eighteen-year-old Chivas Regal whiskey doubled its market share to 20 percent in 2005, according to the business magazine Producto. And Vita di Luca, the owner of VitArte, which provides art market advice, says there's been a 25 percent increase in art purchases in the last two years. Some people clearly got very, very rich due to rise of Chavez.

[Comrade Rage]

Majority. He's definitely a progressive force, but he doesn't fit the definition of 'socialist.'


Hugowha? I only read National Geographic and watch the Jesus ChanelJesus Chanel? Is that some kind of perfume??:D

[Die Neue Zeit]

There should have been a seventh option: one in between "unsure" and "majority." :(

[Louis Pio]

Some people clearly got very, very rich due to rise of Chavez.


Or some would say because of the rise in oilrevenues, anyway im glad you joined in the fight for nationalisation under workers control instead of supporting Chirino

[Yehuda Stern]

About the rich against poor concept, Leo is quite correct. Many sections of the petty-bourgeois are often poorer than many sections of the working class. We do not support the workers because they are poor, or even because they are exploited, but because they're the only class that can overthrow capitalism and lead humanity to socialism. He also a good answer regarding Chavez's bourgeois supporters.

Basically you have had another round of false claims, lies, whatever you wish to call them; you have again justified the reformist ('socialist') bourgeois government's intervention into a workers' organization; and... another Spanish article! How about I give you a couple of Hebrew articles and say that in them Chavez is exposed as a neo-Nazi? Would that be "your problem"?


The bolivarian missions are meaningless? The communal councils are meaningless? Are you on crack? And why is it wrong to be a reformist or to support reformist pro-working class policies?

They represent a Bonapartist move to establish control over the masses, they too, not since the weekend, and of course - that is if you consider yourself a revolutionary.

How is it NOT wrong to be a reformist?


Good point, Chirino even opposed the factory occupations because "we had a capitalist society" or something to that extent. So in reality he wasn't putting forward any solutions, this always happens with ultraleft secterians, they become a hinderance for any revolutionary development.

Teis, supporting state intervention against left-wingers in working class organizations sets a dangerous precedent. I don't support Chirino's politics, which also consist of critical support for Chavez (it's the critical part that bugs the government, not his 'ultra-leftism'). But tomorrow, Chavez may decide to fire revolutionaries from their posts in a trade union. The next day, Chavez will decide that workers are too irresponsible to choose their own leaders, and will dissolve the UNT and set up a 'Bolivarian' trade union. Is this all so wild? Is this not pretty much what happened in Bolivia and Argentina, so many times and in so many cases in history?

[Leo]

anyway im glad you joined in the fight for nationalisation under workers control instead of supporting ChirinoI would never support union hacks like Chirino, on the other hand I don't support "nationalization" either, I call for Venezuelan workers to struggle for their own class interests, I say that regardless of whether it is the state or private capital they will be exploited and emphasize that whenever they do that and they will face Chavez's bourgeois state as it happened in SIDOR, which was already a partially state-run and a partially Argentinian run firm. I call for the overthrow of both private capital and national-state capital by Venezuelan workers.


Jesus Chanel? Is that some kind of perfume??

I thought so, that's why I voted for that option.

[Herman]

This is a very ignorant statement. The essence of class war is the fight between the workers and the rulers, not some wage concept such as the poor an the rich.
About the rich against poor concept, Leo is quite correct. Many sections of the petty-bourgeois are often poorer than many sections of the working class. We do not support the workers because they are poor, or even because they are exploited, but because they're the only class that can overthrow capitalism and lead humanity to socialism.It's pure coincidence that the oppressed class has always been poor then? Or that the oppressors have been rich? You know perfectly well that what draws most people into socialism and marxism is the inherent inequality in our capitalist society that causes poverty for a certain amount of people. Marxists use the concept of class struggle to explain why this happens. There may be petit-bourgeois, or lumpenproletariat who are poorer than your average worker, but this difference is minimal. Poverty causes class consciousness to arise. The concept of "Poor vs Rich" is integral and very much part of marxism. You're just arguing for the sake of arguing. Stop it.


The working-man lived in poverty and want, and saw that others were better off than he. It was not clear to his mind why he, who did more for society than the rich idler, should be the one to suffer under these conditions. Want conquered his inherited respect for the sacredness of property, and he stole. We have seen how crime increased with the extension of manufacture; how the yearly number of arrests bore a constant relation to the number of bales of cotton annually consumed.Guess who wrote this?


Basically you have had another round of false claims, lies, whatever you wish to call them; you have again justified the reformist ('socialist') bourgeois government's intervention into a workers' organization; and... another Spanish article! How about I give you a couple of Hebrew articles and say that in them Chavez is exposed as a neo-Nazi? Would that be "your problem"?Except that Hebrew isn't the third most spoken language in the world.


They represent a Bonapartist move to establish control over the masses, they too, not since the weekend, and of course - that is if you consider yourself a revolutionary.Oh please. You haven't even explained how they "control the masses"... except maybe that these misiones are working and poverty is declining! If you don't think that's a good thing, then there is no hope for you or your ideological puritanism.


How is it NOT wrong to be a reformist?It is not wrong to be a reformist, as long as the reforms benefit the working class and actively pursue the objective of establishing a socialist society.

[KC]

As long as the state is in the hands of a socialist government, then it's alright. Similar to Lenin in fact.

This is obviously not true, and it is in no way comparable to the Bolsheviks. First, the character of the state is that of a bourgeois state apparatus; a socialist government presiding over such an apparatus will not bring socialism. Second, your claim that Chavez's government is socialist (i.e. revolutionary marxist) is not backed up at all.


They represent a Bonapartist move to establish control over the masses, they too, not since the weekend, and of course - that is if you consider yourself a revolutionary.


Chavez is in no way a Bonapartist.


Oh please. You haven't even explain how they "control the masses"... except maybe that these misiones are working and poverty is declining!

Is socialism measured by the extent of the social programs offered by the state? As far as I knew, socialism in the Marxist sense is that of workers control of society.

I guess that doesn't matter as long as Chavez is "ending poverty".

What do you think will happen when oil prices start falling?


It is not wrong to be a reformist, as long as the reforms benefit the working class and actively pursue the objective of establishing a socialist society.

Until the point where the seizure of society by the proletariat is necessary, at which point reformists become reactionary.

[Herman]

This is obviously not true, and it is in no way comparable to the Bolsheviks. First, the character of the state is that of a bourgeois state apparatus; a socialist government presiding over such an apparatus will not bring socialism.The mechanisms of the state can be changed because of the socialist government, which is happening thanks to the communal councils, leading to the Democratic Communal State.


Second, your claim that Chavez's government is socialist (i.e. revolutionary marxist) is not backed up at all.I didn't say it was revolutionary marxist. I said it was socialist, which is true. There is a difference you see: you can be a socialist without being a marxist.


Is socialism measured by the extent of the social programs offered by the state? As far as I knew, socialism in the Marxist sense is that of workers control of society.

I didn't say that socialism is achieved through social programmes. I do say though that they help reduce poverty and raise the standards of living, which is a good thing (as well as giving socialist consciousness), unless you're so inhumane that you'd prefer they stay poor.


What do you think will happen when oil prices start falling?

Obviously this is a problem. The vicepresident of the PSUV criticized this, saying that Venezuela had "mercantile rentist" relations of production, very much unlike European industrial capitalist relations. It is necessary to stop depending so much on oil exports.


Until the point where the seizure of society by the proletariat is necessary, at which point reformists become reactionary.

It would depend if the reformists decided to stop and squash the worker's insurrection (a la Germany 1919) or they accept and allow the insurrection to happen.

[KC]

The mechanisms of the state can be changed because of the socialist government, which is happening thanks to the communal councils, leading to the Democratic Communal State.The various mechanisms of any state apparatus can be changed, but the fundamental principles of the state itself (in this case a bourgeois form) cannot be changed merely through reform. Venezuela's state cannot be reformed to become that of a proletarian form.


I didn't say it was revolutionary marxist. I said it was socialist, which is true. There is a difference you see: you can be a socialist without being a marxist.Define socialist.


I didn't say that socialism is achieved through social programmes. I do say though that they help reduce poverty and raise the standards of living, which is a good thing (as well as giving socialist consciousness), unless you're so inhumane that you'd prefer they stay poor.1. What is "socialist consciousness"?
2. How do welfare programs help "give socialist consciousness"?


Obviously this is a problem. The vicepresident of the PSUV criticized this, saying that Venezuela had "mercantile rentist" relations of production, very much unlike European industrial capitalist relations. It is necessary to stop depending so much on oil exports.Depending simply on oil exports is not the problem; it is merely an extreme caricature of the problem. The problem is that these welfare programs are dependent upon a capitalist economy, and as such will be taken away as oil prices decline in this instance, and as economy declines in general.


It would depend if the reformists decided to stop and squash the worker's insurrection (a la Germany 1919) or they accept and allow the insurrection to happen.Of course, that leads us directly back to Zurdito's wonderful post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1172623&postcount=22), whereby the job of leadership is to lead and not to follow.

Do you think Chavez and his administration fulfills that leadership role? If so, then how can you reconcile that assertion with the fact that he is not leading the workers and their allies, but is rather, in your words, "accept[ing] and allow[ing] the insurrection to happen"? If not, then who is the leader (if there even is one) and what is Chavez's relation to that process?

[Ramachandra]

critical support.We beleive something is better than nothing.well you can see chavez has improved a lot since the time he came in to power.In the begining he was just a nationalist but now he has done something which cannot be underestimate in favor of the proleteriate.yeah he must go a long way to succeed socialism.More he sticks in to marx leninist basics more can be acheived.

[Yehuda Stern]

Except that Hebrew isn't the third most spoken language in the world.

Oh stop speaking nonsense. If your material is not in a language I can read, it is of no relevance to the discussion. Stop being childish - either translate or dig up something better.

Except in Pabloite mythology, a capitalist government, reformist or otherwise, cannot better the lives of the masses. It can offer, under extreme pressure, certain reforms, which can always be taken back. The latest referendum was meant to give Chavez more power so that the reforms suggested in it could be rolled back later.

Incidentally, you still haven't shown where and how the IMT reported or opposed Chirino's dismissal.

[Herman]

Oh stop speaking nonsense. If your material is not in a language I can read, it is of no relevance to the discussion. Stop being childish - either translate or dig up something better.Not my problem if you can't understand one of the most international languages. Consequently, I do not have the time to translate a whole article, or various articles, from Spanish to English. Apart from the fact that it's "innocent until proven guilty", and as far as I see, you haven't given any proof or evidence of your claims.


Except in Pabloite mythology, a capitalist government, reformist or otherwise, cannot better the lives of the masses.There is no such thing as a "capitalist" government. There "could" (and I write this from the perspective of a left-communist) be a capitalist state (state capitalist), but even then Lenin mentioned that socialism is nothing but "state capitalism". If you however are referring to individual ministers owning capital and businesses, you will find that there aren't many in the government of Venezuela (the only one which you might consider capitalist is the minister of economy, who is in charge of PDVSA, but since he does not own it, but instead manages it and gains no profit from it, then he is not a capitalist).


It can offer, under extreme pressure, certain reforms, which can always be taken back.The same applies to revolutions. Don't believe me? Ask trotskyists about Stalin.


The latest referendum was meant to give Chavez more power so that the reforms suggested in it could be rolled back later.What are you talking about? You're just speculating, and as we all know, speculation is a fools game.


Incidentally, you still haven't shown where and how the IMT reported or opposed Chirino's dismissal.It was in one of the articles I posted, but reading through it again I haven't seen mentioned Chirino being fired from PDVSA. You can see it though in several articles published by members of the CMR on Aporrea.org I believe.


They are commonly reffered as the Boliburguesía, I believe, Bolivarians who drives new Hummers and Audis, and who flies private aircrafts. A prominent fella among those folks is Wilmer Ruperti, a leading player in Venezuela's billion-dollar oil business. Today Ruperti's company is one of the top shipping operators for the state oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela, or PDVSA, and has accumulated a fortune -- enough to reportedly spend $1.6 million at a recent auction at Christie's for two pistols once owned by Simón Bolívar. Involvement of lots of top Venezuelan businessmen in the Maletinazo scandal also indicates important things, and the connection between Antonini Wilson and the Proarepa food company, now part of a mission, owned by Sarkis Arslanian Beyloune and Ricardo Fernández Barrueco. It is important to note that Proarepa was in charge of the food distribution during Venezuela's oil strike of 2002, when Chávez signed important contracts for food distribution. This company is part of "Misson Mercal" right now.Obviously you're referring to the bureaucrats and capitalists who have benefited from having close links to the government. I do denounce them and wish for them to be dismissed or arrested.


The various mechanisms of any state apparatus can be changed, but the fundamental principles of the state itself (in this case a bourgeois form) cannot be changed merely through reform. Venezuela's state cannot be reformed to become that of a proletarian form.If you could specify what those "fundamental principles" are, then we could actually go somewhere with this instead of each claiming "reform or no reform".


Define socialist.There are marxists, or revolutionary socialists, who use Marx's analysis of the capitalist system and wish for human society to advance to the next stage of socialism, and there are Democratic Socialists, or evolutionary socialists, who take some of Marx's ideas on the capitalist system and also wish for human society to advance to the next stage of human society. This is embodied best by Eduard Bernstein.


1. What is "socialist consciousness"?

The same as class consciousness. I should have changed the wording.


2. How do welfare programs help "give socialist consciousness"?

The "misiones" not only aim to provide basic necessities (such as reading or writing), but also inform, give out books and pamphlets, speeches, videos and more, about socialism and socialist authors.


Depending simply on oil exports is not the problem; it is merely an extreme caricature of the problem. The problem is that these welfare programs are dependent upon a capitalist economy, and as such will be taken away as oil prices decline in this instance, and as economy declines in general.

Well, the economy is still mostly capitalist, yes. I didn't claim it wasn't. I'm hoping that it won't be in the future.


Of course, that leads us directly back to Zurdito's wonderful post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../showpost.php?p=1172623&postcount=22), whereby the job of leadership is to lead and not to follow.

Do you think Chavez and his administration fulfills that leadership role? If so, then how can you reconcile that assertion with the fact that he is not leading the workers and their allies, but is rather, in your words, "accept[ing] and allow[ing] the insurrection to happen"? If not, then who is the leader (if there even is one) and what is Chavez's relation to that process?

To many, Chavez is unquestionably the leader, and his administration, as well as the party, fill the role of leadership.

There are several smaller leaders though. Some of them can become more popular than Chavez, and may fill the role of leadership. When I say that they should "accept" and "allow" the insurrection to happen, i'm assuming that there is suddenly a general strike or a gigantic protest demanding an insurrection. If this was the case, then the leadership should accept it and take the role of leadership for that insurrection.

[Yehuda Stern]

Well, then, I'll publish some articles in Mandarin for your sake. Only the most spoken language in the world, right? How about Urdu? Maybe Arabic, the fifth most spoken native tongue in the world, which I guarantee you I speak better than you? Would that count as proof?

Stop acting like a little child and acknowledge that the only reason you won't translate even segments from said articles is because they don't prove your point at all.

[Herman]

Well, then, I'll publish some articles in Mandarin for your sake. Only the most spoken language in the world, right? How about Urdu? Maybe Arabic, the fifth most spoken native tongue in the world, which I guarantee you I speak better than you? Would that count as proof?

Except that none of the languages you mentioned are as international as Spanish.


Stop acting like a little child and acknowledge that the only reason you won't translate even segments from said articles is because they don't prove your point at all.

At least I gave sources. You've given nothing.

[Yehuda Stern]

At least I gave sources. You've given nothing.

I never needed to give anything, seeing as inasmuch as all your resources were in Spanish, you had no arguments that needed answering.

Oh yeah, and no, Arabic isn't international at all. Only official in 25 countries.

[Led Zeppelin]

There is no such thing as a "capitalist" government. There "could" (and I write this from the perspective of a left-communist) be a capitalist state (state capitalist), but even then Lenin mentioned that socialism is nothing but "state capitalism". If you however are referring to individual ministers owning capital and businesses, you will find that there aren't many in the government of Venezuela (the only one which you might consider capitalist is the minister of economy, who is in charge of PDVSA, but since he does not own it, but instead manages it and gains no profit from it, then he is not a capitalist).

This is what happens when you take your "knowledge" (if you can even call it that) from posts made by Revleft members (Jacob apparently in this case) instead of from reading about the matter and studying it yourself.

You end up being completely ignorant about the issue.

First about there "being no such thing as a capitalist government", since you cite Lenin for your later claim about state-capitalism let's see what he says on this issue:


Taking advantage of the revolution, the capitalist government, styling itself a “revolutionary” government and using this “noble” name to hoodwink the ignorant people, is putting more and more money into the pockets of the capitalists, helping them to amass more and more millions!
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/may/31b.htm)

Hence, the basic contradiction of the present revolution—one that reveals it merely as the first stage of the first revolution brought about by the imperialist war. The Guchkov-Milyukov landlord and capitalist government can give the people neither peace, bread, nor freedom.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/mar/16.htm)

“Why do you speak against the capitalists all the time?” he said. “I’m not a capitalist, am I? We’re workers, we are defending our freedom.” You’re wrong, you are fighting because you are obeying your capitalist government; it’s the governments, not the peoples, who are carrying on this war.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/may/14.htm)

A committee for the affairs of the landowners and capitalists—that was what the capitalist government was.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/apr/11b.htm)

Only a few days ago we read a short report in the newspapers to the effect that one of the most experienced, exceedingly skilful and astute leaders of a capitalist government, Lloyd George, is, it appears, beginning to propose a similar step; and that seemingly the U.S.A. wishes to reply by saying: “Sorry, but we want to be repaid in full.”
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/dec/27.htm)

Having exposed your ignorance there, let's move on to the claim you made about state-capitalism and Lenin's view on it.

Lenin didn't say that "state-capitalism" would exist under socialism in the same manner as a "state-capitalism" exists in capitalist states, that is absurd:


Lenin did actually apply the term “state capitalism” but not to the Soviet economy as a whole, only to a certain section of it: the foreign concessions, the mixed industrial and commercial companies and, in part, the peasant and largely kulak [rich peasant] cooperatives under state control. All these are indubitable elements of capitalism, but since they are controlled by the state, and even function as mixed companies through its direct participation, Lenin conditionally, or, according to his own expression, “in quotes,” called these economic forms “state capitalism.” The conditioning of this term depended upon the fact that a proletarian, and not a bourgeois, state was involved; the quotation marks were intended to stress just this difference of no little importance. However, insofar as the proletarian state allowed private capital and permitted it within definite restrictions to exploit the workers, it shielded bourgeois relations under one of its wings. In this strictly limited sense, one could speak of “state capitalism.”

Lenin came out with this very term at the time of the transition to the NEP, when he presupposed that the concessions and the “mixed companies,” that is, enterprises based upon the correlation of state and private capital, would occupy a major position in the Soviet economy alongside of the pure state trusts and syndicates. In contradistinction to the state capitalist enterprises – concessions, etc., that is – Lenin defined the Soviet trusts and syndicates as “enterprises of a consistently socialist type.” Lenin envisioned the subsequent development of Soviet economy, of industry in particular, as a competition between the state capitalist and the pure state enterprises.

We trust that it is clear now within what limits Lenin used this term that has led Urbahns into temptation. In order to round out the theoretical catastrophe of the leader of the “Lenin(!)bund,” we must recall that, contrary to Lenin’s original expectations, neither the concessions nor the mixed companies played any appreciable role whatsoever in the development of the Soviet economy. Nothing has now remained generally of these “state capitalist” enterprises. On the other hand, the Soviet trusts whose fate appeared so very murky at the dawn of the NEP underwent a gigantic development in the years after Lenin’s death. Thus, if one were to use Lenin’s terminology conscientiously and with some comprehension of the matter, one would have to say that the Soviet economic development completely bypassed the stage of “state capitalism” and unfolded along the channel of the enterprises of the “consistently socialist type.”
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1933/10/sovstate.htm)

[Herman]

I never needed to give anything, seeing as inasmuch as all your resources were in Spanish, you had no arguments that needed answering.

You made claims and you didn't back them up with anything.


Oh yeah, and no, Arabic isn't international at all. Only official in 25 countries.

Fine, you want articles in English?

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/2167

http://www.greenleft.org.au/2006/693/35989

http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2006/0706bowmanstone.html

http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/americas/venezuela/communalcouncils.html




Having exposed your ignorance there,

No, you haven't exposed anything. There is a difference you see, between the Venezuelan government right now, and the government of Russia pre-1917: The Venezuelan government does not include people who own capital. The Russian government was composed of nobles (landowners).

Notice however that Lenin uses the terms "Capitalist Government" not literally, but to simply denote that the government in power was a pro-capitalist one and wishes to keep capitalist relations of production.


Lenin didn't say that "state-capitalism" would exist under socialism in the same manner as a "state-capitalism" exists in capitalist states, that is absurd

My point wasn't that Lenin wanted state-capitalism in the same way that left-communists or cliffites know it. It's that, even when the terms "state capitalist" are used, is it wrong, since the theory of state capitalism is wrong.

[Led Zeppelin]

No, you haven't exposed anything. There is a difference you see, between the Venezuelan government right now, and the government of Russia pre-1917: The Venezuelan government does not include people who own capital. The Russian government was composed of nobles (landowners).

There's no difference at all, they're both capitalist.

How is the government of Venezuela not capitalist? How is it possible for a non-capitalist government to rule with a capitalist state-machinery over a capitalist economic system?

There was no social revolution which smashed the capitalist state-machinery in Venezuela or overhauled the social system.

Yes, there were some reforms, but they certainly didn't change the capitalist relations in the economic system.


Notice however that Lenin uses the terms "Capitalist Government" not literally, but to simply denote that the government in power was a pro-capitalist one and wishes to keep capitalist relations of production.

That is using the term literally, how else can you use it?

How can a non-capitalist government rule over a capitalist nation?

Well, according to you this is the case in Venezuela, but then again you say that Venezuela is socialist, not capitalist...


My point wasn't that Lenin wanted state-capitalism in the same way that left-communists or cliffites know it. It's that, even when the terms "state capitalist" are used, is it wrong, since the theory of state capitalism is wrong.

Ok, that makes sense then.

[Yehuda Stern]

Fine, you want articles in English?

Good, we managed to agree that it was stupid to say that it is "my problem" that I don't know Spanish. Now you just have to show me that article where the IMT mentions and condemns Chirino's dismissal and you might salvage your image a bit (although after claiming that there's no such thing as a capitalist government, I don't really know what can be done).

[Herman]

Good, we managed to agree that it was stupid to say that it is "my problem" that I don't know Spanish. Now you just have to show me that article where the IMT mentions and condemns Chirino's dismissal and you might salvage your image a bit (although after claiming that there's no such thing as a capitalist government, I don't really know what can be done).

Like I said before:


It was in one of the articles I posted, but reading through it again I haven't seen mentioned Chirino being fired from PDVSA. You can see it though in several articles published by members of the CMR on Aporrea.org I believe.

Of course, whether what the members say is actually the official position of the IMT in general is questionable.

[KC]

If you could specify what those "fundamental principles" are, then we could actually go somewhere with this instead of each claiming "reform or no reform".

The machinery of violence that the bourgeoisie has selected, trained and appointed for the purpose of hoodwinking and crushing the workers can hardly be of much use to the working class however:
“the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes. ... The first decree of the Commune, therefore, was the suppression of the standing army, and the substitution for it of the armed people.” [Marx, Civil War in France (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/ch05.htm)]
While the conquest of state power is necessary to prevent the capitalists from restoring capitalism and to create the conditions for a genuinely free association of producers:
“Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.” [Critique of the Gotha Program, Chapter 4 (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm)]
The workers’ state is however quite a different kind of thing as compared to the bourgeois state. The whole point is to do away with the exploitation of person by person and do away with class divisions, and do away, therefore, with any need for a state:
“When at last it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself unnecessary. As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection; as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon our present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from these, are removed, nothing more remains to be repressed, and a special repressive force, a state, is no longer necessary. The first act by virtue of which the state really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society – the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society – this is, at the same time, its last independent act as a state. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The state is not “abolished”. It withers away.” [Frederick Engels Anti-Dühring (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch24.htm#054), Part III, Ch. 2]
-marxists.org

" In the first place, at the very outset of his argument, Engels says that, in seizing state power, the proletariat thereby “abolishes the state as state". It is not done to ponder over over the meaning of this. Generally, it is either ignored altogether, or is considered to be something in the nature of “Hegelian weakness” on Engels' part. As a matter of fact, however, these words briefly express the experience of one of the greatest proletarian revolutions, the Paris Commune of 1871, of which we shall speak in greater detail in its proper place. As a matter of fact, Engels speaks here of the proletariat revolution “abolishing” the bourgeois state, while the words about the state withering away refer to the remnants of the proletarian state after the socialist revolution. According to Engels, the bourgeois state does not “wither away", but is “abolished” by the proletariat in the course of the revolution. What withers away after this revolution is the proletarian state or semi-state."
-Lenin, State & Revolution

"The question of the dictatorship of the proletariat is a question of the relation of the proletarian state to the bourgeois state, of proletarian democracy to bourgeois democracy. One would think that this is as plain as a pikestall."
-Lenin, Proletarian Revolution & the Renegade Kautsky


There are marxists, or revolutionary socialists, who use Marx's analysis of the capitalist system and wish for human society to advance to the next stage of socialism, and there are Democratic Socialists, or evolutionary socialists, who take some of Marx's ideas on the capitalist system and also wish for human society to advance to the next stage of human society. This is embodied best by Eduard Bernstein.

Which is a form of reactionary socialism, but does describe Chavez very well:

"Bernstein simply cannot conceive of the possibility of voluntary centralism, of the voluntary fusion of the proletarian communes, for the sole purpose of destroying bourgeois rule and the bourgeois state machine. Like all philistines, Bernstein pictures centralism as something which can be imposed and maintained solely from above, and solely by the bureaucracy and military clique."

Replace Bernstein with Chavez.


To many, Chavez is unquestionably the leader, and his administration, as well as the party, fill the role of leadership.

If Chavez is the leader, then why is he just "accept and allow[ing] the insurrection to happen"? How can Chavez be the leader while at the same time [I]not actually leading?

This is a contradiction in your statements.

[Herman]

If Chavez is the leader, then why is he just "accept and allow[ing] the insurrection to happen"? How can Chavez be the leader while at the same time [I]not actually leading?

This is a contradiction in your statements.

There is a fundamental difference. Notice I stated "To many", rather than "he is". There are several currents within the bolivarian movement, some are radical, others a moderate. In general, the PSUV and Chavez are seen as the leader and they are leading, if somewhat ambiguosly. Otherwise there would have been something similar to the Caracazo by now... except that it would have been a virtual revolution (especially given the leftist sympathies of some sections of the military).

I'll answer the rest when I have some more time.

[KC]

It was quite obvious that I was asking you who you thought the leader is.

[Herman]

The machinery of violence that the bourgeoisie has selected, trained and appointed for the purpose of hoodwinking and crushing the workers can hardly be of much use to the working class however:
“the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes. ... The first decree of the Commune, therefore, was the suppression of the standing army, and the substitution for it of the armed people.” [Marx, Civil War in France (http://www.anonym.to/?http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/ch05.htm)]
While the conquest of state power is necessary to prevent the capitalists from restoring capitalism and to create the conditions for a genuinely free association of producers:
“Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.” [Critique of the Gotha Program, Chapter 4 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm)]
The workers’ state is however quite a different kind of thing as compared to the bourgeois state. The whole point is to do away with the exploitation of person by person and do away with class divisions, and do away, therefore, with any need for a state:
“When at last it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself unnecessary. As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection; as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon our present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from these, are removed, nothing more remains to be repressed, and a special repressive force, a state, is no longer necessary. The first act by virtue of which the state really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society – the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society – this is, at the same time, its last independent act as a state. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The state is not “abolished”. It withers away.” [Frederick Engels Anti-Dühring (http://www.anonym.to/?http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch24.htm#054), Part III, Ch. 2]
-marxists.org

" In the first place, at the very outset of his argument, Engels says that, in seizing state power, the proletariat thereby “abolishes the state as state". It is not done to ponder over over the meaning of this. Generally, it is either ignored altogether, or is considered to be something in the nature of “Hegelian weakness” on Engels' part. As a matter of fact, however, these words briefly express the experience of one of the greatest proletarian revolutions, the Paris Commune of 1871, of which we shall speak in greater detail in its proper place. As a matter of fact, Engels speaks here of the proletariat revolution “abolishing” the bourgeois state, while the words about the state withering away refer to the remnants of the proletarian state after the socialist revolution. According to Engels, the bourgeois state does not “wither away", but is “abolished” by the proletariat in the course of the revolution. What withers away after this revolution is the proletarian state or semi-state."
-Lenin, State & Revolution

"The question of the dictatorship of the proletariat is a question of the relation of the proletarian state to the bourgeois state, of proletarian democracy to bourgeois democracy. One would think that this is as plain as a pikestall."
-Lenin, Proletarian Revolution & the Renegade Kautsky

Well, those are all very nice quotes, though I was referring to be specific mechanisms of the state (mentioned by Marx in one of your quotes, is the Standing army. Yes, it exists still, but the Bolivarian militias are also being created as a reserve force for now).

But let's talk about these mechanisms! Democracy is one of them. Depending on the type of democracy, it serves one class or the other. The move towards a participatory democracy already begun a long time ago, and is consolidating itself. The first step towards a new democracy is the implementation of a new democratic culture. That is why societies which have had feudal relations of production, and suffered bourgeois revolutions or upheavals, degenerated into dictatorships (which is very much the case of South America, and this authoritarian culture can still be seen among the right-wing of these countries). The consolidation of a new democracy starts with cultural changes and attitudes (and the same applies to patriarchy and sexuality).

The administration of the state, or the bureaucracy, is another mechanism. In a socialist society, it is inadmissible that bureaucracies should be so great. Much of the money collected in taxes is spent on mantaining the bureaucracy. However, bueaucracy arises when the need for more departments, offices and such increases. Statist socialism, or state socialism, creates unnecessary bureaucracy, and it is something I criticize Chavez and his ministers for (allowing to stay there, entrenched and to become wealthy). And still some bureaucracy is needed (though it must be cut in half). As Engels notes (in one of your quotes):


State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production.

But you are correct that the Venezuelan state is a bourgeois state still! It has mechanisms that industrial capitalist countries possess! And so, these mechanisms, I agree, must be eliminated. The sluggish pace annoys me. It also annoys me when I hear that workers somewhere have been shot or repressed by officials (not because I dislike hearing criticisms)! These things do lead me to question many of the things that the Venezuelan government does.

At the same time though, they do many good things, for the poor. To live in misery is awful. You may think this is highly moralistic and it's some way of justifying reformism. Social programmes are good things and criticizing them makes no sense. But this is not the only thing - intellectuals, for the first time in my life (having been living in a pro-capitalist culture society), have been discussing socialism, ways of implementing it, mechanisms, direct democracy, worker's control... many trade unions are doing so too. To me, that's incredible. It's wonderful. You know as well as me what it is to be surrounded by pompous liberals, to whom if you mutter the word socialism or communism, they will link it with "central planning", lack of consumer goods, complete control by the state, etc. In other words, the culture is changing. The cultural hegemony is changing hands. Workers openly protest against the government for not doing enough, communal councils demand more control and poverty is declining. This whole process, this movement towards socialism, began with the leadership of one party, allied to several other leftist parties.

The Caracazo, as it is called, was plainly the rage of the masses set loose, without leadership. It took everyone by surprise (similar to the 1905 revolution in Russia curiously), even the Communist party. No one thought that thousands of poor workers, peasants and jobless people would rise against the government which was in power at that time. But to canalize that rage, to lead such a movement and desire towards a better society requires, as you have in your "wonderful post", leadership. And who could provide such leadership? The Communist Party of Venezuela? Hypocrites! They supported the government of Carlos Andres Perez! One of the smaller leftist parties (Patria Para Todos, PODEMOS, Liga Socialist)? No, the leadership came from a former military officer, who founded a party named Fifth Republican movement, and decided to compete for the position of president (this part is more an answer to your leadership stuff).

[Charliesoo]

That last option is quite hilarious.

I voted for "Support a majority of decisions"

[KC]

The sluggish pace annoys me. So why do you think it is going at such a sluggish pace? Obviously you know what I think (which I address below), but you haven't expressed your opinion on this matter, and this is basically the crux of the debate.


At the same time though, they do many good things, for the poor. To live in misery is awful. You may think this is highly moralistic and it's some way of justifying reformism. Social programmes are good things and criticizing them makes no sense. On the contrary, criticizing them makes perfect sense! Social reforms are in nearly all cases a way of "paying off" workers and is one tool used to suppress revolutionary sentiment or the formation of a movement towards that goal.

In fact, the implementation of workers' cooperatives is very similar to this, as are social and welfare programs implemented by Chavez's government (which will disappear with a decline in oil prices if the means of funding aren't diversified, and which will disappear with a decline in the Venezuelan economy if they are). The only means of consolidating these programs are moving towards a socialist economy, which in my opinion hasn't been happening.

It is also quite clear that Chavez’s ideas on nationalization are not that of proactive nationalization, but that of reactive nationalization:


This message is for the Venezuelan bourgeois class. We respect you as Venezuelans, you should respect Venezuela, you should respect the homeland, you should respect our constitution, you should respect our laws. If you don’t do this … we will make you obey the Venezuelan laws!

This quote is very representative of his position with regards to not only nationalizations, but with how to deal with the bourgeoisie in general. As long as the bourgeois class “respect[s] Venezuela, …respect[s] the homeland, …respect[s] the constitution, …[and] respect[s] [Venezuelan] laws” they will be safe.

Another good example of this is the Sidor movement for nationalization and the subsequent nationalization. It took two years of protests and strikes culminating in violence against the workers by the state (the one you assert is “moving towards socialism”) for nationalization to happen. After that, almost all subcontracted labourers weren’t even included in the contract because the state claimed that if they did that Sidor would go out of business! Even the form that the nationalization process took was that of appeasement towards the bourgeoisie that owned the company; the state bought out Sidor at a price negotiated and agreed upon by both parties, and even maintained private ownership in the company (up to 40% private ownership!). This reeks of opportunism.


The Caracazo, as it is called, was plainly the rage of the masses set loose, without leadership. It took everyone by surprise (similar to the 1905 revolution in Russia curiously), even the Communist party. No one thought that thousands of poor workers, peasants and jobless people would rise against the government which was in power at that time. But to canalize that rage, to lead such a movement and desire towards a better society requires, as you have in your "wonderful post", leadership. And who could provide such leadership? The Communist Party of Venezuela? Hypocrites! They supported the government of Carlos Andres Perez! One of the smaller leftist parties (Patria Para Todos, PODEMOS, Liga Socialist)? No, the leadership came from a former military officer, who founded a party named Fifth Republican movement, and decided to compete for the position of president (this part is more an answer to your leadership stuff). This is not an answer to my leadership question at all, as this is merely a criticism of other groups and assertions that they are not leaders. What I want you to answer is whether you think Chavez is the leader of this movement, and if so then how can you rectify that with being merely passive and responsive? Here is the question I asked:


If Chavez is the leader, then why is he just "accept[ing] and allow[ing] the insurrection to happen"? How can Chavez be the leader while at the same time not actually leading? Moreover, you have basically implied that Chavez is a "reformist socialist" and perhaps even a "Bernsteinian socialist". Do you really think that a Bernsteinian socialist could lead a proletarian revolution? This leads back to my earlier point as well, to which you have yet to respond:


"Bernstein simply cannot conceive of the possibility of voluntary centralism, of the voluntary fusion of the proletarian communes, for the sole purpose of destroying bourgeois rule and the bourgeois state machine. Like all philistines, Bernstein pictures centralism as something which can be imposed and maintained solely from above, and solely by the bureaucracy and military clique."

Replace Bernstein with Chavez.

[Zurdito]

There is no such thing as a "capitalist" government. There "could" (and I write this from the perspective of a left-communist) be a capitalist state (state capitalist), but even then Lenin mentioned that socialism is nothing but "state capitalism".


Actually Herman, I don't know what you're talking about, Lenin dismissed this argument.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/ichtci/11.htm#v25zz99h-360



What has been said so far may easily arouse the following objection on the part of a reader who has been brought up on the current opportunist ideas of the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks. Most measures described here, he may say, are already in effect socialist and not democratic measures!

This current objection, one that is usually raised (in one form or another) in the bourgeois, Socialist-Revolutionary and Menshevik press, is a reactionary defence of backward capitalism, a defence decked out in a Struvean garb. It seems to say that we are not ripe for socialism, that it is too early to "introduce" socialism, that our revolution is a bourgeois revolution and therefore we must be the menials of the bourgeoisie (although the great bourgeois revolutionaries in France 125 years ago made their revolution a great revolution by exercising terror against all oppressors, landowners and capitalists alike!).

The pseudo-Marxist lackeys of the bourgeoisie, who have been joined by the Socialist-Revolutionaries and who argue in this way, do not understand (as an examination of the theoretical basis of their opinion shows) what imperialism is, what capitalist monopoly is, what the state is, and what revolutionary democracy is. For anyone who understands this is bound to admit that there can be no advance except towards socialism.

Everybody talks about imperialism. But imperialism is merely monopoly capitalism.
That capitalism in Russia has also become monopoly capitalism is sufficiently attested by the examples of the Produgol, the Prodamet, the Sugar Syndicate, etc. This Sugar Syndicate is an object-lesson in the way monopoly capitalism develops into state-monopoly capitalism.

And what is the state? It is an organisation of the ruling class — in Germany, for instance, of the Junkers and capitalists. And therefore what the German Plekhanovs (Scheidemann, Lensch, and others) call "war-time socialism" is in fact war-time state-monopoly capitalism, or, to put it more simply and clearly, war-time penal servitude for the workers and war-time protection for capitalist profits.

Now try to substitute for the Junker-capitalist state, for the landowner-capitalist state, a revolutionary-democratic state, i.e., a state which in a revolutionary way abolishes all privileges and does not fear to introduce the fullest democracy in a revolutionary way. You will find that, given a really revolutionary-democratic state, state- monopoly capitalism inevitably and unavoidably implies a step, and more than one step, towards socialism!

For if a huge capitalist undertaking becomes a monopoly, it means that it serves the whole nation. If it has become a state monopoly, it means that the state (i.e., the armed organisation of the population, the workers and peasants above all, provided there is revolutionary democracy) directs the whole undertaking. In whose interest?
Either in the interest of the landowners and capitalists, in which case we have not a revolutionary-democratic, but a reactionary-bureaucratic state, an imperialist republic.

Or in the interest of revolutionary democracy—and then it is a step towards socialism.

For socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly. Or, in other words, socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly.

There is no middle course here. The objective process of development is such that it is impossible to advance from monopolies (and the war has magnified their number, role and importance tenfold) without advancing towards socialism.


Or are you going to tell me that in Venezuela, the working class is the ruling class?

[Comrade B]

Or are you going to tell me that in Venezuela, the working class is the ruling class?
Not directly, but Che Guevara was middle class, and I would feel free to say that he was representing the middle class in his military campaigns. Hugo Chavez is supported by the working class, and fully dependent on their support.

[Yehuda Stern]

No. Chavez has the sympathy of the masses, but the referendum was a sign that he is trying to free himself from their pressure by relying more and more on the state, and particularly the army. Chavez isn't a victim of the bureaucracy - he surrounds himself in it to give himself an alibi for blocking the workers' class struggle. Like Stalin or Mao, he will, every now and then, rant about this or that bureaucrat or 'reformist.' But he and his supporters do this only so the workers' believe that they face only the 'rich' and 'unpatriotic' and not the Venezuelan ruling class as a whole.

Chavez does have to make the masses believe that he is working for them. Chavez's referendum offered the workers some reforms in return for greater power for him - thankfully, they said no, despite the fact that most of them still support him to some extent. They just, unlike you, aren't ready to through away their democratic rights for an ex-colonel who always talks the talk but never walks the walk.

That the centrist left supports Chavez, by the way, is unfortuante, but no surprise - since it supported similar anti-proletarian rulers (Stalin, Mao, Tito, various rulers in Latin America). These 'lefts' simply do not trust the workers to be able to make the revolution on their own. They simply must have some kind-hearted bourgeois leader making sure they don't make any silly mistakes.

[KurtFF8]

As was said before, he does play a bizzare balancing act. I would say though that he is a good example of how the "reformism revolution false dichotomy". I believe that the state's apparatus should indeed be taken by those who are at least very sympathetic to the movement and that it will help it succeed overall, as we can see in Chavez's case, having the state isn't enough.

He is also an example of the "better of _ evils" that is often said. I wouldn't go as far as to say that Obama is another example of this obviously but it does make one think that we shouldn't always be so quick to dismiss capitalist elections because if anything, the left having success in them is a great visibility and propaganda tool that should be utilized.

[Herman]

Chavez does have to make the masses believe that he is working for them. Chavez's referendum offered the workers some reforms in return for greater power for him - thankfully, they said no, despite the fact that most of them still support him to some extent. They just, unlike you, aren't ready to through away their democratic rights for an ex-colonel who always talks the talk but never walks the walk.

You still haven't said which changes in the constitution would give Chavez more power. Do you even know what was contained in referendum changes at all?

And he's walked far more than anyone else in Venezuela. And he's still walking, despite all the obstacles.


That the centrist left supports Chavez, by the way, is unfortuante

The "centre-left" is actually against him, represented by parties such as Accion Democratia or Un Nuevo Tiempo. They have made their stance clear regarding Chavez.

[Yehuda Stern]

He is also an example of the "better of _ evils" that is often said.But if we're proletarian revolutionists, why do we need to choose some 'progressive' bourgeois politician to do our work, when we know damn well that there is no progressive bourgeoisie in our era, that none of them can do our work? Or let me ask in reverse - If you do believe that we should support the better of all the bourgeois candidates, why do you think we need to be proletarian revolutionists? (If I'm making the wrong assumption that you do think so, excuse me)


You still haven't said which changes in the constitution would give Chavez more power. Do you even know what was contained in referendum changes at all?See, Herman, your problem is that you're crude as well as unchallenging. I only have to say the words "enabling act" to make your question seem oh so banal.

And no, not "center-left" - centrist left. There's a big difference. The centrists are those who pretend to be revolutionaries but whose politics are reformist. That's the term Lenin used for Kautsky, or Trotsky for the many grouplets outside both the Third and Fourth internationals (most prominently, the London Bureau). "Center left" usually refers to liberal or social-democratic groups.

(I'll chalk this one up to a linguistic misunderstanding, not to the usual dishonest mode of debate)

[Herman]

See, Herman, your problem is that you're crude as well as unchallenging. I only have to say the words "enabling act" to make your question seem oh so banal.

Enabling act? You mean that little something which was approved by all parties in the parliament?

And what does that have to do with the constitutional changes? You still haven't told me which were the changes that you deemed "undemocratic".


And no, not "center-left" - centrist left. There's a big difference. The centrists are those who pretend to be revolutionaries but whose politics are reformist. That's the term Lenin used for Kautsky, or Trotsky for the many grouplets outside both the Third and Fourth internationals (most prominently, the London Bureau). "Center left" usually refers to liberal or social-democratic groups.

Centre-left and "centrist left" sound very similar, but whatever.


(I'll chalk this one up to a linguistic misunderstanding, not to the usual dishonest mode of debate)

Dishonest? As opposed to you, who's backed up every claim with sources?

[KC]

Well, you still haven't responded to my post.

[Herman]

So why do you think it is going at such a sluggish pace? Obviously you know what I think (which I address below), but you haven't expressed your opinion on this matter, and this is basically the crux of the debate.

It's going at a sluggish pace because there are people within the bolivarian movement who are attempting to slow down the process.


On the contrary, criticizing them makes perfect sense! Social reforms are in nearly all cases a way of "paying off" workers and is one tool used to suppress revolutionary sentiment or the formation of a movement towards that goal.

In fact, the implementation of workers' cooperatives is very similar to this, as are social and welfare programs implemented by Chavez's government (which will disappear with a decline in oil prices if the means of funding aren't diversified, and which will disappear with a decline in the Venezuelan economy if they are). The only means of consolidating these programs are moving towards a socialist economy, which in my opinion hasn't been happening.

Well, if we're going to dismiss social programmes and the formation of cooperatives, then we might as well dismiss any progress that the Bolsheviks, the anarchists or socialists have done in general by claiming that it's a way of "paying off" workers. Maybe, after all, they are actually genuinely trying to advance working class control? It is slow, that much is true, but it's happening.


It is also quite clear that Chavez’s ideas on nationalization are not that of proactive nationalization, but that of reactive nationalization:


Quote:
This message is for the Venezuelan bourgeois class. We respect you as Venezuelans, you should respect Venezuela, you should respect the homeland, you should respect our constitution, you should respect our laws. If you don’t do this … we will make you obey the Venezuelan laws!
This quote is very representative of his position with regards to not only nationalizations, but with how to deal with the bourgeoisie in general. As long as the bourgeois class “respect[s] Venezuela, …respect[s] the homeland, …respect[s] the constitution, …[and] respect[s] [Venezuelan] laws” they will be safe.

I know that quote. I heard it myself. I didn't particularly like it, so I don't agree with Chavez there. He also did say that they have to find allies, "even if it's with the national bourgeoisie", which I terribly disagree with.


Another good example of this is the Sidor movement for nationalization and the subsequent nationalization. It took two years of protests and strikes culminating in violence against the workers by the state (the one you assert is “moving towards socialism”) for nationalization to happen. After that, almost all subcontracted labourers weren’t even included in the contract because the state claimed that if they did that Sidor would go out of business! Even the form that the nationalization process took was that of appeasement towards the bourgeoisie that owned the company; the state bought out Sidor at a price negotiated and agreed upon by both parties, and even maintained private ownership in the company (up to 40% private ownership!). This reeks of opportunism.

Perhaps. I do dislike that there still lies quite a bit of private ownership (although understandable, especially knowing that SIDOR is an international Argentenian company). There are more protests and strikes in other factories that haven't been nationalized yet. Like I said, I don't like it either, but eventually the workers will force the government to nationalize.


Or are you going to tell me that in Venezuela, the working class is the ruling class?

In the case of Venezuela, the government isn't made up by businessmen, so it isn't a "capitalist" government. It is a "socialist" government (or at least it claims to be, to be fair). Neither the capitalists or the workers are in full command. What we have is a curious... mix of both. Not something which I necessarily agree with though.

[KC]

Well, if we're going to dismiss social programmes and the formation of cooperatives, then we might as well dismiss any progress that the Bolsheviks, the anarchists or socialists have done in general by claiming that it's a way of "paying off" workers. Maybe, after all, they are actually genuinely trying to advance working class control? It is slow, that much is true, but it's happening.

I'm not dismissing them outright; the argument that "socialism is coming to Venezuela, albeit slowly; just give it time" is the same argument that has been put forth for the past couple of years, since Chavez came to power, and it hasn't really went anywhere significant since then. Moreover, there isn't even any reason for it to "go slow".

Your argument is flawed because you are equating social and welfare programs with moving towards socialism, and saying that if one criticizes those programs then they are criticizing that move toward socialism (and if they dismiss those programs that they are dismissing socialism in general!). This is obviously not such a simplistic and polarized argument.

You are also focused too much on social and welfare programs in Venezuela to ask real questions about the state of the movement in Venezuela and the supposed "move towards socialism". Poverty statistics or the literacy rate aren't indicative of that movement. What about the class struggle?


I know that quote. I heard it myself. I didn't particularly like it, so I don't agree with Chavez there. He also did say that they have to find allies, "even if it's with the national bourgeoisie", which I terribly disagree with.

Of course, and you can't just dismiss it as something he just said in a speech; it's a very good representation of where he stands politically; his goal as a populist is appeasement and not working class power. This is why we see, from the proletarian perspective, the nationalization of SIDOR, and from the bourgeois perspective, the negotiated buyout of SIDOR at an agreed price with up to 40% privatization. It is an attempt at appeasement for all classes through compromise (from the proletarian perspective, the exclusion of the majority of subcontracted workers from the initial contract and partial privatization, from the bourgeois perspective the nationalization itself).


Perhaps. I do dislike that there still lies quite a bit of private ownership (although understandable, especially knowing that SIDOR is an international Argentenian company). There are more protests and strikes in other factories that haven't been nationalized yet. Like I said, I don't like it either, but eventually the workers will force the government to nationalize.

You're offering very confusing and conflicting statements about how you perceive the struggle in Venezuela. First you say that Chavez is a reformist (a Bernsteinian even, perhaps) and that he is the leader of the movement, and now you say that the workers will have to force the government (including Chavez) forwards.

So Chavez is the passive leader who has to be forced to act? That doesn't sound like a leader to me; that sounds like someone who is effectively holding back the movement, for you're either on one side or the other, and if you're not the working class then you're against them.


In the case of Venezuela, the government isn't made up by businessmen, so it isn't a "capitalist" government.

The factor that makes a government a "capitalist government" is that it in general serves the interests of the bourgeoisie. The actual makeup of that government is irrelevant; even in the American congress, for example, there have been plenty of congressmen that haven't commanded capital.

The question, then, isn't of composition but of outlook; whose interests are defended by the American government? The bourgeoisie, certainly. So whose interests are defended by the Venezuelan government? Who benefits from having a populist president whose aim is appeasement of all classes? Certainly not the working class.


It is a "socialist" government (or at least it claims to be, to be fair).

Do you think it is or not, then?


Neither the capitalists or the workers are in full command. What we have is a curious... mix of both.

It is not an either/or option. All governments end up appeasing all classes every so often (how do you think workers gained rights?). The question one has to ask is in general whose interests are protected by the current Venezuelan government?

[Herman]

I'm not dismissing them outright; the argument that "socialism is coming to Venezuela, albeit slowly; just give it time" is the same argument that has been put forth for the past couple of years, since Chavez came to power, and it hasn't really went anywhere significant since then. Moreover, there isn't even any reason for it to "go slow".

It has gone somewhere. There are more people out in the streets demanding changes than ever before. Common poor folk can ask for media equipment for free if they want to and form their own radio or local TV channel. There are over 40,000 communal councils organized at the local level. Workers are more class conscious than ever before. How can you say that it has not gone significantly anywhere? It's not wrong to say that thanks to the leadership of the MVR, Venezuela lives in the situation it is in right now.


Your argument is flawed because you are equating social and welfare programs with moving towards socialism, and saying that if one criticizes those programs then they are criticizing that move toward socialism (and if they dismiss those programs that they are dismissing socialism in general!). This is obviously not such a simplistic and polarized argument.

I don't claim that social programmes lead to socialism. I do say that for those who were starving and living in wretched poverty, in the short term, are living better now than before. This hasn't taken away the revolutionary edge of the process. If anything, it has increased demands and class consciousness (especially if they can read and write! The Bolsheviks were forced to use pictures and images so that Russia peasants could understand their message).


You are also focused too much on social and welfare programs in Venezuela to ask real questions about the state of the movement in Venezuela and the supposed "move towards socialism". Poverty statistics or the literacy rate aren't indicative of that movement. What about the class struggle?

If you visit apporea.org, or other similar websites, you will notice that there are always activities and protests going on. I am not joking when I say that there is a frenzy of political movement and consciousness, far more than here in Europe. In Spain for example, the PSOE only starts acting a few months before the elections. After that, it's dead silence. In Venezuela, it's going all year round.


Of course, and you can't just dismiss it as something he just said in a speech; it's a very good representation of where he stands politically; his goal as a populist is appeasement and not working class power. This is why we see, from the proletarian perspective, the nationalization of SIDOR, and from the bourgeois perspective, the negotiated buyout of SIDOR at an agreed price with up to 40% privatization. It is an attempt at appeasement for all classes through compromise (from the proletarian perspective, the exclusion of the majority of subcontracted workers from the initial contract and partial privatization, from the bourgeois perspective the nationalization itself).

If you're interested in that particular quote, check this: http://www.aporrea.org/poderpopular/n116201.html

Stalin Perez is one of the people I admire in the UNT. That particular interview shows many of the points I agree with (and I especially condemn that meeting with those 500 capitalists... that has to be one of the worst things Chavez has done). I am not without some critique. As I have said before, I critically support Chavez. I do not uphold him as the saviour of man kind.


You're offering very confusing and conflicting statements about how you perceive the struggle in Venezuela. First you say that Chavez is a reformist (a Bernsteinian even, perhaps) and that he is the leader of the movement, and now you say that the workers will have to force the government (including Chavez) forwards.

So Chavez is the passive leader who has to be forced to act? That doesn't sound like a leader to me; that sounds like someone who is effectively holding back the movement, for you're either on one side or the other, and if you're not the working class then you're against them.

A leader can be both aggressive and passive. Sometimes he will lunge forward and increase the pace. Other times he will slow down, perhaps because he perceives that he is losing support (like now, with the constitutional referendum), although he isn't according to several recent polls that have been made (and you can check them on aporrea.org). So when he doesn't act, he is forced to do so. And when he does, usually it's for the better.


The factor that makes a government a "capitalist government" is that it in general serves the interests of the bourgeoisie. The actual makeup of that government is irrelevant; even in the American congress, for example, there have been plenty of congressmen that haven't commanded capital.

The question, then, isn't of composition but of outlook; whose interests are defended by the American government? The bourgeoisie, certainly. So whose interests are defended by the Venezuelan government? Who benefits from having a populist president whose aim is appeasement of all classes? Certainly not the working class.

Well, that is what I was referring when I said that a "capitalist government" didn't exist. A government can be made up of anyone, but what's important is whom it serves, or the outlook as you say (although it isn't irrelevant of whom it is made up by).

Now, whose interests are being defended? Chavez would like to defend both the national bourgeoisie and the workers. He has a misguided view of socialism where he believes that the bourgeoisie can exist along with the workers. It's almost a social-democratic view, but it has benefited the workers (he has already proposed the formation of worker's councils) and it has benefited many of the national capitalists (you will notice that their profit has actually increased greatly... far more than before!).


Do you think it is or not, then?

You don't have to ask me this. I know you have the urge of branding me as a reformist and social-democrat, but stay your hand.


It is not an either/or option. All governments end up appeasing all classes every so often (how do you think workers gained rights?). The question one has to ask is in general whose interests are protected by the current Venezuelan government?

That's the thing. Currently it is both. The Bolivarian process is at a crossroads. Like you said, there is no middle road (which is the hope of Chavez), but right now it's benefitting both. Eventually one class will impose itself over the other... whether it's one or the other... well, we'll just have to see, won't we?

[Yehuda Stern]

Enabling act? You mean that little something which was approved by all parties in the parliament?

Oh, sorry, you're right! The Patriot Act was also approved by every party in the US senate! Guess that's OK too!


Dishonest? As opposed to you, who's backed up every claim with sources?

Well, as opposed to me, no one, and as opposed to anyone, certainly not you. When you did link to some articles, they were in Spanish, and seeing as I can't read Spanish, and you refused to translate even parts of the articles, they were never 'sources' in any meaningful sense.

[Herman]

Oh, sorry, you're right! The Patriot Act was also approved by every party in the US senate! Guess that's OK too!

Except that the patriot act is anti-socialist, whereas the enabling act was only used for pro-socialist reforms and laws.


Well, as opposed to me, no one, and as opposed to anyone, certainly not you. When you did link to some articles, they were in Spanish, and seeing as I can't read Spanish, and you refused to translate even parts of the articles, they were never 'sources' in any meaningful sense.

I gave you a list of sources in English after that. You still haven't given any evidence to your claims.

[Yehuda Stern]

Except that the patriot act is anti-socialist, whereas the enabling act was only used for pro-socialist reforms and laws.


That is your own (ridiculous) claim, meant only to justify your (opportunist) support of Chavez.


I gave you a list of sources in English after that. You still haven't given any evidence to your claims.

No. You give me a list of sources that show that Chavez set up some 'grassroots' groups and other Chavista life support systems. You haven't shown either that Chavez is really a socialist, which is as impossible as proving, say, that the moon is made out of cheese, nor that the IMT either criticized or even mentioned the persecution of Orlando Chirino.

[Herman]

No. You give me a list of sources that show that Chavez set up some 'grassroots' groups and other Chavista life support systems. You haven't shown either that Chavez is really a socialist, which is as impossible as proving, say, that the moon is made out of cheese, nor that the IMT either criticized or even mentioned the persecution of Orlando Chirino.

I already did. Look a few pages back, you will see I gave a list of sources. I mentioned the IMT as well.

And it's "innocent until proven guilty".

[Yehuda Stern]

Herman, you did not. You lied back then, and you're lying now. And I'm getting sick and tired of this third-grade level "I know you are, but what am I"-style debate.

And it's not a case of anyone being innocent. The IMT stands condemned. It is you, an IMT supporter, who fails to acquit it.

[Herman]

Herman, you did not. You lied back then, and you're lying now. And I'm getting sick and tired of this third-grade level "I know you are, but what am I"-style debate.

And it's not a case of anyone being innocent. The IMT stands condemned. It is you, an IMT supporter, who fails to acquit it.Lied?


It was in one of the articles I posted, but reading through it again I haven't seen mentioned Chirino being fired from PDVSA. You can see it though in several articles published by members of the CMR on Aporrea.org I believe.
And no, they haven't condemned "this dictatorial move" as you call it. It is well known that Chirino is an ultra-leftist orthodox trotskyist (at least he claims to be). He has consistenly been a sectarian leftist incapable of compromising with the other currents in the UNT.
Fine, you want articles in English?

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/2167 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/2167)

http://www.greenleft.org.au/2006/693/35989 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.greenleft.org.au/2006/693/35989)

http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archi...wmanstone.html (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2006/0706bowmanstone.html)

http://www.globalexchange.org/countr...lcouncils.html (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/americas/venezuela/communalcouncils.html)Learn to READ.

And when I was talking about "Innocent until proven guilty", I was referring to the fact that you demand sources from me when it comes to my claims of Chavez, while you haven't shown any yourself. I'm not the one who has to prove anything. It's you.

[Yehuda Stern]

Herman, it's amazing that you have the audacity to show these quotes despite the fact that they clearly show you lying and avoiding my questions. Please. I am done arguing with you in this thread. Obviously Chavez is too much of an idol for you to be able to discuss his regime honestly. Then again, you are a supporter of the IMT, so no surprise there.

[Herman]

Herman, it's amazing that you have the audacity to show these quotes despite the fact that they clearly show you lying and avoiding my questions. Please. I am done arguing with you in this thread. Obviously Chavez is too much of an idol for you to be able to discuss his regime honestly. Then again, you are a supporter of the IMT, so no surprise there.You come here, accuse Chavez of being a "populist" (failing to understand the meaning of the word in the first place), parroting the same terms used by conservatives and social-democrats, demand sources from me, and when I give you sources proving, both in English and Spanish, that Venezuela had progressed greatly towards establishing a new social order and that the IMT did not specifically say anything about Orlando Chirino (admitting that I was firstly mistaken, but not completely as some members of the CMR, which is part of the IMT, have written articles denouncing Orlando as a sectarian and ultra-leftist), you call me a "liar" and that i'm avoiding your questions, while you still haven't given any sources to your claims, which is what you should've done in the first place, making them empty and hollow statements by someone who is desperate to uphold his sectarian trotskyist "Fourth International" line on Chavez.

If you can't go back some pages(despite that these quotes I just copied from those pages do reply to your "questions") and check what I said, and the sources I mentioned, then there's no hope for you.

[Yehuda Stern]

Herman, you didn't give any sources, certainly not in English. I'm not taking this any further. I'm surprised you didn't take the chance to end this by now.

[Herman]

Herman, you didn't give any sources, certainly not in English. I'm not taking this any further. I'm surprised you didn't take the chance to end this by now.

Then what are THESE!?

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/2167 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/2167)

http://www.greenleft.org.au/2006/693/35989 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.greenleft.org.au/2006/693/35989)

http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archi...wmanstone.html (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2006/0706bowmanstone.html)

http://www.globalexchange.org/countr...lcouncils.html (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/americas/venezuela/communalcouncils.html)

[Pogue]

He's as radical as he can be. If he was too radical he'd not be able to help the people of Venezuela because he'd be labelled a 'danerous commie' and the US would attack and he'd lose alot of support. He's a radical democratic socialist, or someone who has implemented revolutionary democratic socialism. He's done alot for socialism and making it seem credible.
Most 'mistakes' (in the revolutionary lefts eyes) are caused, to some extent vy capitalist pressures.

[Comrade B]

He's done alot for socialism and making it seem credible.
Agreed, he has made us seem a lot less like those crazy commies of James Bond movies trying to blow up the world and more like a legitimate political party. He has also been powerful in the movement to remove Imperialist influence in South America.

[Yehuda Stern]

That's ridiculous - are you actually supporting Chavez for making socialism more 'respectable' in the eyes of the ruling class?

[OI OI OI]

I think that Chavez should be criticaly supported by the revolutionary socialists.
Chavez is the leader of a party with a giant working class base(close to 6 million). He has done some steps forward , like nationalizing some sectors of the economy etc(although not on workers control most of the and we should point out that when we criticize him). He has done a lot of mistakes, like listening to his advisers who are reformist bureaucrats which convince him some times to hold back. Like a revolutionary period can last forever!
In order to not get alienated from the workers we should work in the PSUV where the workers are and criticize the bureaucracy and point out to the workers the mistakes that the bureaucracy makes in order to win them over. By adopting a sectarian attitude we will accomplish nothing.
Remember what was Lenin asking for in 1917? All power to the Soviets! But the Bolsheviks did not control the Soviets it was the Mensheviks and the SR's who controlled them. Lenin said all power to the Soviets in order for the workers to see the unwillingness of the Mensheviks and the SR's to grab the power and bring the socialist revolution about.
We should similarly cry, all power to the PSUV although we do not control it! When the workers see (and they are constantly seing that) that the PSUV would not go forward then they will make the conclusions that we want them to make. And turn to us.

PS Its 4 in the morning so I don't know if this made a lot of sense :lol:

[Comrade B]

I am supporting him because he has not completely disowned the use of diplomacy

[dirtycommiebastard]

I am supporting him because he has not completely disowned the use of diplomacy

Diplomacy with who?

[Comrade B]

Rather than declaring all those that oppose him his enemies, he tries to unite the left against western imperialism. He doesn't polarize the less left sided socialist governments in the region.

[Yehuda Stern]

Rather than declaring all those that oppose him his enemies, he tries to unite the left against western imperialism.

Not true. He dismissed Orlando Chirino from his job as UNT chairman because he supported him only critically (which is a mistake too in my opinion) instead of giving him full support.

[john33155]

Well Ive been living in Venezuela for the past 3years. I can tell you that 3 years ago I supported him of course then I lived in the US. In my opinion Chavez is the most inmoral, dirtiest most corrupted person Ive seen in my life, I even consider him a facist. This guy has no intent to change Venezuela, it will probably sound really crazy to say this too but his thoughts and ideology have nothing to do with socialism or communism. Chavez to me is Julius Cesar, Napoleon, Mao, Stalin even Hitler put together. When you are in the US they make him sound (the media, and leftist) like he is a revolutionary but he is not he has not a single hair or particle in his body that is.

[comrade stalin guevara]

Chavez is great, is comrade castro wrong?

[Yehuda Stern]

I wouldn't say Chavez is a fascist. I'd say he's a bourgeois populist who plays on the workers' will for change to prepare a power base for himself, in order to later position himself as a Bonapartist ruler. It's true that he's going in an autocratic direction, but his regime is much more like that of Peron than the Hitler regime.


Chavez is great, is comrade castro wrong?

I'll say it this way: only those who can consider Castro to be a "comrade" can consider Chavez to be "great."

[KurtFF8]

Well Ive been living in Venezuela for the past 3years. I can tell you that 3 years ago I supported him of course then I lived in the US. In my opinion Chavez is the most inmoral, dirtiest most corrupted person Ive seen in my life, I even consider him a facist. This guy has no intent to change Venezuela, it will probably sound really crazy to say this too but his thoughts and ideology have nothing to do with socialism or communism. Chavez to me is Julius Cesar, Napoleon, Mao, Stalin even Hitler put together. When you are in the US they make him sound (the media, and leftist) like he is a revolutionary but he is not he has not a single hair or particle in his body that is.

Care to elaborate on why you feel this way?

[comrade stalin guevara]

I wouldn't say Chavez is a fascist. I'd say he's a bourgeois populist who plays on the workers' will for change to prepare a power base for himself, in order to later position himself as a Bonapartist ruler. It's true that he's going in an autocratic direction, but his regime is much more like that of Peron than the Hitler regime.



I'll say it this way: only those who can consider Castro to be a "comrade" can consider Chavez to be "great."


Well i will say it like this castro is a comrade and chavez is great!

[Magdalen]

Well Ive been living in Venezuela for the past 3years. I can tell you that 3 years ago I supported him of course then I lived in the US. In my opinion Chavez is the most inmoral, dirtiest most corrupted person Ive seen in my life, I even consider him a facist. This guy has no intent to change Venezuela, it will probably sound really crazy to say this too but his thoughts and ideology have nothing to do with socialism or communism. Chavez to me is Julius Cesar, Napoleon, Mao, Stalin even Hitler put together. When you are in the US they make him sound (the media, and leftist) like he is a revolutionary but he is not he has not a single hair or particle in his body that is.

Although I find your entire comment very distasteful and reactionary, I'm particularly angered by a few points you've made.


In my opinion Chavez is the most inmoral, dirtiest most corrupted person Ive seen in my life, I even consider him a facist.Chávez, a fascist? What planet are you on? This is a man who has devoted his life to protecting Venezuela from the fascistic policies of US neoliberalism. He has a consistent record of calling for unity between the diverse racial groups of Latin America. Chávez himself is of mixed Amerindian, African and Spanish origin.


This guy has no intent to change VenezuelaNo intent to change Venezuela? I think you're a bit behind the times. The Venezuela of today is almost unrecognisable from the Venezuela Chávez became President of in 1999. A new Bolivarian constitution has been enacted, nationalisations have taken place in all sectors of the economy, state control over the oil industry has been reasserted, close alliances have been built with various anti-imperialist nations through ALBA, the pro-imperialist trade unions have been supplanted by the new National Union of Workers, the entire education system has been reformed. I could go on for hours.

Not a bad job for an administration which at the same time has to deal with coup attempts, economic warfare and an incredibly hostile bourgeoisie.


When you are in the US they make him sound (the media, and leftist) like he is a revolutionary but he is not he has not a single hair or particle in his body that isThe left in the US (and in Europe) don't make him sound like a revolutionary enough! Those who make immediate demands for "communism now" and the overnight nationalisation of all industry and banks with full workers' control do not appreciate the historic task faced by Chávez. These are symptoms of a failure to understand the struggle for national sovereignty in the age of imperialism. Of course, at one one point Venezuela will have to walk this path, there is no alternative. But first it must secure its national sovereignty and educate its people in preparation for the future.

[el_chavista]

blah blah blahHey, we have an "escuálido" at RevLeft. They are so alienated by the mass media business that they think they are like crusaders of an "antichavism" campaign.
He registered for the sole purpose of slandering Chávez.

[Yehuda Stern]

Written like a true demagogue. In the same way I could say that you are part of the Bolibourgeoisie and registered for the sole purpose of posting false pro-Chavez propaganda (and I would probably be more on the money than you).

[RedHal]

Well Ive been living in Venezuela for the past 3years. I can tell you that 3 years ago I supported him of course then I lived in the US. In my opinion Chavez is the most inmoral, dirtiest most corrupted person Ive seen in my life, I even consider him a facist. This guy has no intent to change Venezuela, it will probably sound really crazy to say this too but his thoughts and ideology have nothing to do with socialism or communism. Chavez to me is Julius Cesar, Napoleon, Mao, Stalin even Hitler put together. When you are in the US they make him sound (the media, and leftist) like he is a revolutionary but he is not he has not a single hair or particle in his body that is.

lol you lived in the States, and Chavez is the most immoral, dirtiest most corrupt person you've seen in your life? Chavez is Stalin Mao and Hitler?:laugh: Do you write for Fox News?

[RedHal]

Written like a true demagogue. In the same way I could say that you are part of the Bolibourgeoisie and registered for the sole purpose of posting false pro-Chavez propaganda (and I would probably be more on the money than you).

you are gonna be grey and old while revolutions after revolutions pass you by. Revolutions are not easy,never perfect and most fail, but they try and the masses participate, while you sit around being ultra leftists.

[Magdalen]

Written like a true demagogue. In the same way I could say that you are part of the Bolibourgeoisie and registered for the sole purpose of posting false pro-Chavez propaganda (and I would probably be more on the money than you).

The words "ultra-left, snobbish, Trotskyite" come to mind. :lol:

[Trystan]

Option two. Chavez isn't bad, really. His closeness with Iran is a little worrying, and I do hope that he will not turn into the next Castro. Otherwise, he's OK.

[Pogue]

He's great, a real beacon of hope.

[Plan9]

yesterday was his 54th birthday, happy belated b-day to President Hugo Chavez :)

[Yehuda Stern]

you are gonna be grey and old while revolutions after revolutions pass you by.

No, I will be part of these revolutions, while you will support the bourgeois gentlemen who will try and destroy them. You won't succeed forever.


The words "ultra-left, snobbish, Trotskyite" come to mind.

The sentence "Boy, Chavistas can't write a single coherent political statement" comes to mind.

[BIG BROTHER]

Well talking about Chavez, is it me, or is he getting less and less radical each day?

Also I hate the fact that he's allying himself with a guy such as Daniel Ortega.

[comrade stalin guevara]

Whats wrong with Daniel Ortega?

[Yehuda Stern]

is it me, or is he getting less and less radical each day?

He allowed himself to become more radical in his rhetoric up to 2005 because it seemed like he had unconditional mass support after the coup attempt and other attacks by the opposition. But now that many workers are demanding more rights and for him to live up to his promises, he is naturally afraid and this explains his growing attempts to strengthen his power and to control mass organizations, especially the unions.


Whats wrong with Daniel Ortega?

Ortega is a reformist even in relation to Chavez and is openly a social-democrat (the FSLN changed its colors from red to pink to illustrate their change in policy). Not, of course, that the Sandinistas were such great revolutionaries in the past - but now they have gone even further to the right.

[Aurelia]

Whats wrong with Daniel Ortega?
A reformist social-democrat veiled as someone generally progressive, hell in lieu of the state-capitalist USSR for inspiration he actually thinks the Scandinavian welfare-capitalist states are 'socialist'.:rolleyes:

[comrade stalin guevara]

This would be why theres no contra rebels now,
cos ortega is not communist.

[jake williams]

There's a lot to criticize about him and his policies and the truth is I don't even know if I fully and completely support the majority of his decisions. But in practice and attitude I stand behind him because I think we need him right now, and I like him.

[Yehuda Stern]

There's a lot to criticize about him and his policies and the truth is I don't even know if I fully and completely support the majority of his decisions. But in practice and attitude I stand behind him because I think we need him right now, and I like him.

So, you disagree with his politics, but you support him because of that lovely smile of his?

[BIG BROTHER]

This would be why theres no contra rebels now,
cos ortega is not communist.

Bingo, in fact the bastard didn't allow the party "Partido renovador Sandinista" to continue since they were getting more popular and aparently they seek to go down to a more revolutionary path.

[jake williams]

So, you disagree with his politics, but you support him because of that lovely smile of his?
I agree with the direction of politics, and it's rare and so I have to support it as a means of getting anything done. I don't think he goes far enough and he sometimes makes regressions that I don't agree with. But I don't even know if he likes this, in fact I doubt he does. So I support him and I think he is getting progressive things done, even if I might run the country differently - which is obvious anyway.

[Yehuda Stern]

The direction in which he is going is strengthening his power over the state apparatus. Sure, for now he throws the workers some crumbs, but these can always be taken back. Just a couple of months ago, he fired a left-wing UNT leader (Orlando Chirino) because he refused to support him unconditionally. Is that supportable, to you?

[jake williams]

Did I say he was perfect? No, I explicitly said he wasn't perfect. Also a huge distinction is to be made between fairly narrow domestic policies, and the broader effect he has on pushing an anti-imperialist and even anti-capitalist politics. The latter I think he does extremely well, he's one of the few people doing it, he's a leader in it, and he's making space for other people and countries to do the same. If he had more domestic support he could do more. And perhaps if he had more international support he could do more.

[Yehuda Stern]

Did I say he was perfect? No, I explicitly said he wasn't perfect.

Everyone says everyone is not perfect. But there's not being perfect and there is preparing yourself to become an anti-working class dictator. It takes a blind man or a Chavista to not see that. To be honest, I'm very glad that Chavez doesn't have more support, domestic or international, to give Venezuelan workers more of his referendums and enabling acts.

[LiberaCHE]

W6Bz4kRk3fo


:thumbup1:

[Magdalen]

Everyone says everyone is not perfect. But there's not being perfect and there is preparing yourself to become an anti-working class dictator. It takes a blind man or a Chavista to not see that. To be honest, I'm very glad that Chavez doesn't have more support, domestic or international, to give Venezuelan workers more of his referendums and enabling acts.

I'm very glad that you don't have more support to repeat the Anti-Chávez bilge we're all so sick of hearing from you.

Is it possible that you hold these opinions because of your pathological dislike of the IMT? Despite being Trotskyites, the IMT have taken a commendable stance on Venezuela, a stance that has brought them, and Hands Off Venezuela, which they founded, widespread support from outside their traditional ghetto. This must annoy you, after the pathetic ultra-left, Inter-Trotskyite feud you seem to have had with them. And, seeing as no-one will listen to your usual sectarian claptrap, you have decided to use Venezuela as a proxy for attacking the IMT.

I await your response.

[Herman]

Everyone says everyone is not perfect. But there's not being perfect and there is preparing yourself to become an anti-working class dictator. It takes a blind man or a Chavista to not see that. To be honest, I'm very glad that Chavez doesn't have more support, domestic or international, to give Venezuelan workers more of his referendums and enabling acts.

Typical trotskyist sectarianism. You're not giving your comrades a good image.

[OI OI OI]

Typical trotskyist sectarianism. You're not giving your comrades a good image.


That's only the "Fifth International" which is not really Trotskyist as it does not even uphold Trotsky's position in any of the key topics such as the nature of the Soviet Union, while their attitude to Chavez is really idiotic.


As Marxists we should appraise what it is progressive while critisizing its faults. We should also condemn what is reactionary.
That is what we do with Chavez. We appraise what he does right (nationalization, support to Cuba etc) , while critisizing his faults(lack of workers control in nationalizations, conciliating classes when he talks to the bourgeoisie etc).
That way we connect with the workers, while not abandoning our principles (not being opportunist) , while showing the Marxist way forward.
By being ultra leftists and saying that Chavez is a dictator and he is bourgeois etc we bring the millions of workers that support him against us and our message (however right can it be) gets lost .

The user Yerulda whatever slanders the IMT and other Trotskyists and he is really sectarian in all of his posts.

The only thing he is accomplishing is giving a bad name to his sect

[KC]

We appraise what he does right (nationalization

Did you praise the nationalization of Northern Rock?

[OI OI OI]

Did you praise the nationalization of Northern Rock?

The situation in Britain is different than the situation in Venezuela .

In Venezuela we see people talking about socialism in the street corners , bus stops, schools etc. There is a revolutionary ferment in Venezuela. There is none in England.

Chavez opened the debate about socialism and he is trying to achieve socialism in his own way. Not being a Marxist he is unorthodox in his way.

But the nationalizations are a step forward for Venezuela and there are made in a different context than in an avanced capitalist country.
Dont forget that Venezuela is under the imperialist yoke.
All this talk about socialism and all those attacks by Chavez on the big capitalists (when he nationalized SIDOR , etc) have made him a whole lot of enemies (advanced capitalists countries) and also enemies inside Venezuela.
To say that Venezuela follows a Keynesian path would be a grave mistake as it does not take into account the historical development of Venezuela and the material conditions of Venezuela.

To sum up nationalizations are a step forward that we should appraise.
We should criticize the lack of workers control, the bureaucracy and the conciliatiorist path that the government takes some times.

To criticize Chavez for everything and describe him as bourgeois reduces us into ultra-lefts divorced from society.
to appraise him on everything reduces us to opportunists.
To criticaly support him connects us with the masses and makes it easier to show to the masses the Marxist way forward.

[Yehuda Stern]

I'm very glad that you don't have more support to repeat the Anti-Chávez bilge we're all so sick of hearing from you.

No one forces you Chavistas to listen to me, or to anyone else speaking the truth. Your listening has no value, inasmuch as you're incapable of understanding anything.


I await your response.

To what? To you claiming that I oppose Chavez because the IMT supports him? That's precious. For a question as intelligent as that, you'll be waiting for a response for a long time.


Typical trotskyist sectarianism. You're not giving your comrades a good image.

The only thing he is accomplishing is giving a bad name to his sect

Well, I really don't care what image my comrades have in the eyes of IMTers and Chavistas. So spare me the kind advice.


But the nationalizations are a step forward for Venezuela and there are made in a different context than in an avanced capitalist country.
Dont forget that Venezuela is under the imperialist yoke.

Yes, and Chavez has payed off the Spanish capitalists whose bank he nationalized. Let me ask you this - up to probably the early 60s, Israel was not an imperialist state, and all its industry was nationalized. There were no capitalists and the ruling party was Mapai, the predecessor of Labor. Do you think, then, that Israel was a socialist state? Should we have 'critically supported' the Zionist government?

[politics student]

Did you praise the nationalization of Northern Rock?

That was done for capitalist reasons.

Nationalization to liquidate and sell off in pieces closer to its true value than it would have been sold at.

[OI OI OI]

Israel was not an imperialist state............the Zionist government?

How was Israel at the same time, not imperialist AND zionist? :rolleyes:


In the context that Chavez nationalizes the industries etc in Venezuela that makes the nationalizations progressive and we should support them.

If we try to compare the nationalizations of Venezuela to the nationalizations in Britain and Israel then we are confused as hell.
The conditions are different therefore the nationalization means something different...
I am not aware of the situation in Israel at that time so I can't say that the nationalization were progressive. I really don't know.
Buut knowing the conditions in Venezuela I know that the nationalizations are something progressive and we should support them while criticizing Chavez for other things.

That's the correct approach that we have to take as Marxists.

[Yehuda Stern]

How was Israel at the same time, not imperialist AND zionist?

Because one doesn't presuppose the other. Israel had a very backward economy at the time and could not be considered to be imperialist in any sense of the word.


I am not aware of the situation in Israel at that time so I can't say that the nationalization were progressive.

Well, then, do you think Zionism can be progressive? How did that happen? Especially when you're so sure that Zionism is always imperialist - can imperialism be progressive?

[KC]

All this talk about socialism and all those attacks by Chavez on the big capitalists (when he nationalized SIDOR

He bought SIDOR out at an agreed upon price and gave them 49% private ownership over the company. That's not "nationalization".


That was done for capitalist reasons.

And this wasn't? Please prove to me that this nationalization was for "socialist" reasons.


In the context that Chavez nationalizes the industries etc in Venezuela that makes the nationalizations progressive and we should support them.

But why do you think these are progressive?

[Yehuda Stern]

Because Chavez did it...! : )

[OI OI OI]

He bought SIDOR out at an agreed upon price and gave them 49% private ownership over the company. That's not "nationalization".

sources?



And this wasn't? Please prove to me that this nationalization was for "socialist" reasons.

I did on other threads but I will here as well.
First of all Venezuela is under the yoke of American imperialism.
Reformism or Keynesianism needs a material basis. It had one in England , in the US , in Canada etc, but there was never one in countrie s like Venezuela and there will never one. Those countries are under the imperialist (economic and political) yoke of the US and other capitalist countries. Capitalism in those countries is too weak in order to afford reforms.
What is happening now in Venezuela is a revolution(not marxist-leninist) in what way.
Chavez challenges imperialism openly, he challenges the companies who had Venezuela as their playground , exploiting the country and making the lives of the people miserable etc.

So in that sense nationalization is progressive. The conditions of Venezuela are different than those in England and the US .
The US nationalized recently(or will nationalize) two banks because they fell 70% in the stock market . That is state welfare to the bourgeoisie.
But in Venezuela , SIDOR , the Cement companies, the oil companies and the rest were making billions.

The government before Chavez privatised those companies and sold them for "a piece of bread" . Money that were made by these companies in one year. Chavez is doing the same thing but in opposite direction.
Not to save capitalism , but to save the people of Venezuela. Because undoubtely, he has good intentions .

Now do you understand why nationalization in Venezuela is progressive?

He thinks he is constructing "socialism of the 21st century" .
He opened the debate on socialism and now the people have the chance to hear the different views .
By solely criticizing him we dont win an ear of the masses.
By doing the right thing and apraising his progressive steps and condemning his wrong moves by showing the way forward , we win the ear of the masses and we have a chance to help build socialism in Venezuela.

That is why only the IMT from all the other trotskyist sects plays a role in the PSUV and in Venezuela. Precicely because it has the right approach .
Not ultra-leftist and not opportunist

[Yehuda Stern]

That is why only the IMT from all the other trotskyist sects plays a role in the PSUV and in Venezuela. Precicely because it has the right approach .
Not ultra-leftist and not opportunist

No, that is a lie. Many Trotskyist groups play a role in Venezuela other than the IMT - just not such a blatantly pro-Chavez opportunist role as yours. The fact is, your Venezuelan group has not only not gotten bigger over the last 8 years, but has gotten smaller. You have failed to make any trade union or other gains. The only gain you can speak of is that Chavez sometimes mentions Alan Woods and his terrible book on science. Bravo!

You still, btw, haven't replied to my post.

[KC]

sources?My mistake, it's actually up to 40% private ownership, not 49%:

"The Decree orders that Sidor and its subsidiaries and affiliated companies be transformed into state owned enterprises (“empresas del estado”), with the government owning not less than 60% of their share capital."

it goes on:

"The Decree provides for the creation of two committees. A transition committee shall be created to join Sidor’s board of directors and to ensure that control over the current operations of Sidor and its subsidiaries and affiliated companies is transferred to the government on or prior to June 30, 2008. A separate committee, composed of representatives of the government and the private shareholders of Sidor and its subsidiaries and affiliated companies, shall be formed to negotiate over a 60-day period a
fair price for the shares to be transferred to the State, together with the terms and conditions of the possible participation of such private shareholders in the share capital of the state-owned enterprises."
Source (http://www.ternium.com/files/PR_TXS_update_May%2013.pdf)

Prior to the "nationalization" CVG (the Venezuelan government) owned around 20% of the shares of SIDOR. That means that what this "nationalization" process really accomplished was that they bought around 40% of the shares on an agreed price (with the possible participation of such private shareholders in the share capital of the state-owned enterprises, of course).

I'll respond to the rest of your post later when I have time.

[OI OI OI]

No, that is a lie. Many Trotskyist groups play a role in Venezuela other than the IMT - just not such a blatantly pro-Chavez opportunist role as yours. The fact is, your Venezuelan group has not only not gotten bigger over the last 8 years, but has gotten smaller. You have failed to make any trade union or other gains. The only gain you can speak of is that Chavez sometimes mentions Alan Woods and his terrible book on science. Bravo

That's a lie. Actualy the IMT grows with leaps and bounds in Venezuela. From 1 full timer 6 years ago now there are more than 5 hundred activists in the CMR with a very wide orbit of support while significant gains are to be made soon as the CMR recruited a high profile Bolivarian (How high profile you have no idea) . So stop all the lies because they are baseless. I dont wanna seem sectarian etc but you started first. By slandering one group and being obsessed will not get you anywhere.

Also I didn't answer you on the Israel thing because I m not an expert in Israeli history so I wont bother. It is not the theme of the thread anyways

[Yehuda Stern]

Ah, avoidance, the IMT's specialty. Well, maybe you did get many many members, including some trade union bureaucrat (the "high profile Bolivarian"). But the fact is, in your last congress, you had 65 members - exactly the same as in all the last years. In fact for a while you had more thanks to uniting with Workers' Mole, but they split away a little over a year ago. You're not fooling anyone.

As for Israel, you're avoiding my question. Is it not true that if Israeli industry was completely nationalized, then it shows that nationalization hardly means socialism? Yes or no? Would you support this 'Zionist socialism'?

[Herman]

Ah, avoidance, the IMT's specialty. Well, maybe you did get many many members, including some trade union bureaucrat (the "high profile Bolivarian"). But the fact is, in your last congress, you had 65 members - exactly the same as in all the last years. In fact for a while you had more thanks to uniting with Workers' Mole, but they split away a little over a year ago. You're not fooling anyone.

As opposed to the other trotskyist international organizations?

Please.

[Yehuda Stern]

I didn't understand - what as opposed to others? Do you mean that others haven't grown in Venezuela either? If so then maybe you're right, I don't have statistics. But as far as I know, they're the only ones making the ridiculous claim that they are very influential and powerful.

[OI OI OI]

As for Israel, you're avoiding my question. Is it not true that if Israeli industry was completely nationalized, then it shows that nationalization hardly means socialism? Yes or no? Would you support this 'Zionist socialism'?

The situation in Israel as you describe it was not building socialism.
But each situation is different.
In Venezuela , Chavez talks about socialism, the people talk about socialism, EVERYONE talks about socialism.
And the fact that Chavez says that he is building socialism of the 21st century is very good. Now his method is anorthodox and he makes a lot of mistakes.
So obviously some Marxist group needs to show the Venezuelan people the way.
Our tactic is, support Chavez's progressive steps and point out what he does wrong while show the way forward . That way we are not hated by the masses who love Chavez and we do not become opportunist by fully supporting him.
It's a simple Leninist concept really and it seems to work as we started with only one fulltimer 6 years ago, last year we had 202 members but this year we probably have close to a thousand or more. We'll see when the congress ends, whats going to happen.

We are the only trotskyist group that is heard, in the Media, in the Parliament, in the Factories

[Yehuda Stern]

You're making a circular argument here: nationalizations are progressive. But Israel wasn't progressive and it nationalized! But Chavez is progressive, so his nationalizations are as well. But how do you know that Chavez is progressive? Why, he's nationalizing!

As for your claim that last year you had 202 members, it is a blatant lie. I was an IMT member at the time and the report was that there were only 65 members.

[KC]

In Venezuela , Chavez talks about socialism, the people talk about socialism, EVERYONE talks about socialism.

So talking about socialism means that one is socialist? So China is progressive, or North Korea? Was Pol Pot progressive?

[redwinter]

I think it's important to realize that nationalization does not equal socialism - plenty of bourgeoisies, in both imperialist and oppressed nations, use it when it is more in line with their interests. Chávez represents a particular section of the Venezuelan national bourgeoisie that has come into a certain amount of conflict with US interests, but there is still a great amount of collusion between Venezuela and the US. Chávez has certainly not been going for breaking down the links that keep Venezuela chained into the imperialist global accumulation process! Jockeying for higher prices on natural resource exports and some tariffs on foreign investment is firmly within the realm of capitalist bargaining, not national liberation or socialism or anything of the sort.

I refer people to check out Raymond Lotta's analysis of the situation in Venezuela:
Hugo Chavez Has an Oil Strategy...But Can This Lead to Liberation? (http://rwor.org/a/094/chavez-en.html)

And also this illuminating quote from Lotta's "Shifts And Faultlines In The World Economy And Great Power Rivalry", part 1 (http://rwor.org/a/136/lotta_faultlines_pt1-en.html):


Energy producing countries in the Third World like Brazil, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, and Iran have not broken out of structural dependency on the imperialist world market—in terms of reliance on foreign technology; refining, marketing, and transport; etc.; extreme vulnerability to fluctuations in price; and so forth.

Oil- and energy-led development continues to have profoundly distorting effects on agriculture, urban-rural relations and social structure, and exacts a high human price. Venezuela under Chavez imports 70 percent or so of its food, while the landed oligarchy remains largely in place. The shantytowns in Caracas are still home to a huge concentrations of urban poor, many locked out of the formal economy.8 The “other side” of Brazil’s ethanol boom is the hundreds of deaths and tens of thousands of injuries for the plantation workers harvesting the sugar cane from which the fuel is made (and U.S. companies like ADM and Cargill are major investors in Brazil’s agro-energy sector).

But for the local ruling elites, real economic power is concentrated in these spheres of oil, natural gas, and biofuels production. And a certain confluence of developments has afforded some dependent Third World regimes greater maneuvering room. U.S. imperialism has focused attention on its wars for greater empire in Iraq and Afghanistan. The steep, though by no means permanent, rise in raw materials prices has generated high earnings and some financial clout. And the fact that a rising economic power like China is pursuing its own competitive global agenda and has accumulated substantial financial resources to do so means that a country like Venezuela can counter certain U.S. pressures by turning to China for loans and credits.

The changing economic geography of the planet involves a major dispersion (globalization) of productive capacity. But “the world is not flat”—nor is it flattening. Advanced productive forces are still lopsidedly concentrated in the rich countries. GDP per capita in the rich countries is still more than five times higher than in what the International Monetary Fund calls “middle-income countries,” like Brazil, Mexico, and Turkey. GDP per capita in the rich countries is more than 19 times higher than in low-income countries, such as most in sub-Saharan Africa.9 Vast differences in wage levels and huge swaths of humanity subjected to brutal conditions of super-exploitation trace out and underscore the oppressor-oppressed nation divide.

Globalization is having contradictory effects. It is resulting in higher levels of industrialization in the Third World, and income gains for sections of middle classes. But this is not overall equalization. In this phase of imperialist globalization, one of its most significant differentiating effects has been to increase unequal development among and inequalities of wealth within Third World countries. China’s income distribution is among the most unequal in the world—right up there with that of the United States and Brazil.

The changing economic geography of the planet is also affecting world agriculture—to devastating and unequal effect in the Third World. Imperialism is transforming national systems of agriculture into globalized components of transnational production and marketing chains detached from local need—that is, food is grown more and more for export, not to feed people locally, or land is taken out of food production.

Where, historically, food production has been at the foundation of the economies of most of these countries, increasingly, agriculture is becoming less “foundational” to many national economies of the Third World. Food production has been swept into the vortex of speculative commodity and financial markets at the same time that imperialist-led agro-industrial cultivation of biofuels displaces food crops. Basic food staples are no longer being produced in adequate supply in many parts of the Third World—while the forces of world competition, imperialist control over new agricultural technologies, and the vagaries of world price further undermine food security.
And so in early 2008 a global food crisis unlike any experienced before in modern economic history exacts, and continues to exact, a terrible human toll in large parts of Africa, Asia, and Latin America. This too is an expression of the deep divide between oppressor and oppressed nations.


One thing I'd be interested in reading is how Venezuela in particular has been affected by the food crisis and what the government's reaction has been - it would help reveal the underlying logic guiding the regime's choice not to diversify agricultural production and instead to focus on export-driven investment in the developing of their oil resources. Anyone have any pointers on this?

[tiger-argentina]

Well. I'm Argentinian, so I can see Hugo Chavez very near (nearer than most of yourself) and I can say that he is enough radical. Of course he isn't marxist-leninist, but just because the conditions of his country doesn't allow him to be (I hope you understand me).
He has nationalized many industries and services and he has erradicated illiteracy in Venezuela. I think we should support him fully

[OI OI OI]

You're making a circular argument here: nationalizations are progressive. But Israel wasn't progressive and it nationalized! But Chavez is progressive, so his nationalizations are as well. But how do you know that Chavez is progressive? Why, he's nationalizing!

I am not making a circular argument.
Whether nationalization are progressive this depends on the objective conditions.
In places where capitalism is "strong" and there is lets say a collapse in a bank then the government takes over etc, so that is not progressive.
But when the oil industry in an underdevelopped country is making billions and its being nationalized , or when SIDOR is under the control of the government and huge profits go to the pocket of the government and then the government with that money eradicates illiteracy as the Argentinian comrade (^) pointed out then that is progressive.
When a bank has increase of profits of 30% and Chavez buys it off witht he revenue it makes in just one year then that is progressive.
Of course by saying progressive that does not mean that there is no mistakes.
The bank should not have been bought off but rather exxpropriated . Same with SIDOR.
And all the nationalized companies should be under workers control.
So by understanding that all those moves are progressive and through that connecting with the Venezuelan working class, we can push even further and call for the complete nationalization of all the big bussinesses, under workers control , the change of the political system etc.




So talking about socialism means that one is socialist? So China is progressive, or North Korea? Was Pol Pot progressive?

You misunderstood me.
I ment that nationalizations when there is a talk about socialism etc even if Chavez is not a Marxist are progressive steps towards a nationalized planned economy and we should CRITICALY SUPPORT them in order to connect with the masses .

That is not only theoreticaly correct but practicaly also.
You have the right idea. So does the IMT. That idea is a nationalized planned economy democraticaly controlled by the workers(socialism). But your tactics are not correct. As Leninists we are "strict" when it comes to ideas and theory but we are very flexible in tactics. The Venezuelans flooded the PSUV , carry red flags, talk about socialism and believe that Chavez is a socialist. They believe in the Bolivarian revolution.
If as Marxists we go and say "Hey Chavez is an asshole and he is bourgeois etc etc" Then the people are not even bother to look at your correct ideas.
But if you say that Chavez makes some progressive steps and you show the way forward then your ideas are going to have more impact.

Remember when Lenin was saying "All power to the Soviets" .
The Bolsheviks did not control the Soviets. But in that way he showed the incapability of the Mensheviks and the SR's to show a way forward.
In the same way we say"All power to the PSUV"
That way we prove the incapability of the PSUV (although it made some progress) and at the same time we show the Marxist way out.




Of course he isn't marxist-leninist, but just because the conditions of his country doesn't allow him to be (I hope you understand me).

No I don't understand you.
Because in every country in North and South America , Europe and Asia there are conditions for you to be a socialist. Even in most african countries.
You should read Trotskys "Permanent Revolution" where he argues that Socialism can be built even in the most backwards country and that the workers should complete the capitalist revolution and then the socialist revolution as the bourgeoisie is not progressive.
That was what happened in Russia.
To not believe that Venezuela can have a socialist revolution while Russia had one in 1917 (and the conditions in Venezuela are objectively better than in Russia) makes you a Menshevik (or one of its variations , a Stalinist)


Comradely,
OI OI OI

[tiger-argentina]

I am not making a circular argument.

No I don't understand you.
Because in every country in North and South America , Europe and Asia there are conditions for you to be a socialist. Even in most african countries.
You should read Trotskys "Permanent Revolution" where he argues that Socialism can be built even in the most backwards country and that the workers should complete the capitalist revolution and then the socialist revolution as the bourgeoisie is not progressive.
That was what happened in Russia.
To not believe that Venezuela can have a socialist revolution while Russia had one in 1917 (and the conditions in Venezuela are objectively better than in Russia) makes you a Menshevik (or one of its variations , a Stalinist)


Comradely,
OI OI OI

xD
I'm not Menshevik neither Stalinist.
I was trying to say that the conditions in Venezuela are not good enough to make a revolution like the Russian one. I think that there is a revolution in Venezuela, but it's going slowly; so we should support this revolution. Each country has a different process or revolution. It's stupid to think that in Venezuela you can do a revolution like in Russia right now.

[OI OI OI]

I'm not Menshevik neither Stalinist.

Good:)


I was trying to say that the conditions in Venezuela are not good enough to make a revolution like the Russian one.

Let's see. Russia was a backwards country in 1917 with the working class being a minority and the peasantry being the majority. Despite all that they pulled off a revolution.
In Venezuela we have a bigger working class than what Russia had in 1917, the people are in a revolutionary ferment seeking for solutions in order to improve their material conditions and the is a talk about socialism.
I Russia we had an autocracy making revolutionary agitation almost impossible, while in Venezuela there can be revolutionary agitation freely.
I think that on the contrary Venezuela has more favourable conditions than what Russia had in 1917 and that a revolution CAN take place



I think that there is a revolution in Venezuela, but it's going slowly; so we should support this revolution

On my previous posts I repeated this but I will again.
We should support the revolution in Venezuela but offer a Marxist way out.
This slowness of the revolution only shows a weakness on the side of the revolutionaries and gives time to the forces of reaction to drown what is happening now in blood.
Only if we speed up the process , then we can ensure the domination of socialism.

So as Marxists we should support what is happening right now but at the same time criticize it and show a way out.



Each country has a different process or revolution. It's stupid to think that in Venezuela you can do a revolution like in Russia right now.

No!
Each country has different objective conditions due to uneven development not different processes of revolution .
That is absurd and certainly not MArxist-Leninist.
A revolution has to be fast and effective or else the forces of reaction will attack.

Remember what happened in Chile? Do you want the same thing to happen to Venezuela?

[Yehuda Stern]

I do not really understand your criterion for whether or not nationalizations are progressive, to be honest. To me it seems like justification more than theory.

[tiger-argentina]

Good:)


Let's see. Russia was a backwards country in 1917 with the working class being a minority and the peasantry being the majority. Despite all that they pulled off a revolution.
In Venezuela we have a bigger working class than what Russia had in 1917, the people are in a revolutionary ferment seeking for solutions in order to improve their material conditions and the is a talk about socialism.
I Russia we had an autocracy making revolutionary agitation almost impossible, while in Venezuela there can be revolutionary agitation freely.
I think that on the contrary Venezuela has more favourable conditions than what Russia had in 1917 and that a revolution CAN take place



On my previous posts I repeated this but I will again.
We should support the revolution in Venezuela but offer a Marxist way out.
This slowness of the revolution only shows a weakness on the side of the revolutionaries and gives time to the forces of reaction to drown what is happening now in blood.
Only if we speed up the process , then we can ensure the domination of socialism.

So as Marxists we should support what is happening right now but at the same time criticize it and show a way out.


No!
Each country has different objective conditions due to uneven development not different processes of revolution .
That is absurd and certainly not MArxist-Leninist.
A revolution has to be fast and effective or else the forces of reaction will attack.

Remember what happened in Chile? Do you want the same thing to happen to Venezuela?


Each country has different objective and subjective conditions, Fidel Castro said: "We must not copy foreign revolutions. I think that each country has a different revolution. I know what happened in Chile, but it won't happen in Venezuela because in Venezuela a big part of the army is with Chavez, and Chavez will use the army and i'm sure he will create popular militias in case that something happen..

I think you really don't understand the situation in Venezuela. The subjective conditions are not the same that the russian one in 1917. It's a different politic and historic stage.

Anyway, Hugo Chavez has announced the definitive turn to socialism in Venezuela recently

[chebol]

OI OI OI wrote:
"the CMR recruited a high profile Bolivarian (How high profile you have no idea)"

Actually, I have every idea, and it's hardly a state secret. The problem is your position is sectarian, quasi-consiratorial, and false: you assert that the IMT alone amongst all Trotskyist groups is involved in the PSUV and in so on. It simply isn't true.

The IMT is certainly to be commended for recognising the importance of the Bolivarian revolution, but you have failed to really make significant gains, despite (or perhaps because of) the process unfolding in Venezuela. Seriously, whether 50 or 500, in Venezuela today, BOTH numbers are paltry.

One reason for this might be the approach you exhibit yourself, which is characteristic of the IMT generally. The IMT has an a fairly self-righteous and fixed approach to analysis, leading to a situation where, like a stopped clock, you're right twice a day, but wrong for the rest.

The Bolivarian revolution certainly needs all the input of marxist revolutionaries it can get, and the dissemination of said ideas as widely as possible. But for this to be successful, the various "tendencies" need to get over themselves a little, and focus on the struggle to organise, educate and help lead the working class in the key struggles, on the ground, not focus on the (possibly) fleeting allegiance of a minister, and the use of a particular presidential jet to go somewhere or other.

[JimmyJazz]

Based on the news reports, he seems to be helping the poor and workers of Ven and has only cut back on bourgeois political freedoms (the right to own a TV station :rolleyes:) in response to actual abuses of these freedoms by people who want to undermine the popular will. I voted fully support. If I lived in Venezuela I might be tempted to take a more measured opinion, but I don't see how any international socialist can fail to "fully support" one of the most socially progressive and, frankly, politically moderate leaders in the world today.

Again, that's my feeling based only on news reports.

eta: I almost forgot, besides news stories I did read this: Venezuela's Cooperate Revolution (http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2006/0706bowmanstone.html).

eta II: as to my not being able to see how we could fail to support him, that was in anticipation of criticisms that he is being undemocratic. As far as criticisms from the left, like OI OI OI's, those I am of course open to. Just not criticisms from the ultra-left/right about his "undemocratic" way of doing things.

[OI OI OI]

eta II: as to my not being able to see how we could fail to support him, that was in anticipation of criticisms that he is being undemocratic. As far as criticisms from the left, like OI OI OI's, those I am of course open to. Just not criticisms from the ultra-left/right about his "undemocratic" way of doing things.

Comrade , as I have explained millions of times in this thread I support Chavez criticaly.
As a good Marxist ought to do:)
His reforms are progressive . But as Marxists we should criticize his conciliationism with the bourgeoisie and the slowness of the revolution.
But otherwaise support his nationalizations.
To be ultra-leftists and criticize everything, even the progressive steps, reduces us to
reactionaries and divorce us from the population.
To be Chavez-loving and supporting him on everything he does even though its a mistake from a marxist point of view, reduces us to opportunists and reformists.

That's why we can't fully support him or not support him at all.
I think that critical support is the best suited for this situation and as Marxists we should have that position.

I think that the IMT along with some other Trotskyist groups are in the right path

[OI OI OI]

Actually, I have every idea, and it's hardly a state secret. The problem is your position is sectarian, quasi-consiratorial, and false: you assert that the IMT alone amongst all Trotskyist groups is involved in the PSUV and in so on. It simply isn't true.
No I never asserted that. But the IMT is certainly the most known group that has the most influence in Venezuela. I never said that the IMT is the only trot group in the PSUV but I repeat its the only group that is heard and that is making a difference.
Being a realist does not make you sectarian. Or should I wear my anti-sectarian glasses and admit that the Fifth International or the whatever group is doing a marvelous job in Venezuela , equal to that of the IMT when that is not the case?


The IMT is certainly to be commended for recognising the importance of the Bolivarian revolution, but you have failed to really make significant gains, despite (or perhaps because of) the process unfolding in Venezuela. Seriously, whether 50 or 500, in Venezuela today, BOTH numbers are paltry.

When starting with one full timer in 2002 , having 500 members and strong ties to occupied factories, recruiting honest high profile bureaucrts and having an influence on Chavez himself is not too bad. In fact its a great job. Who else starts from scratch and builds an influencial organization in 8 years? Also party building is not a linear but a dialectical process. You fail to see that.
When having 500 members its easier to become 10 000 in a year than it is to go from 50 to 500 especialy without the right ideas. It took us a long time to become more than a small circle. But now we are growing by the hundeds. So this assertion is equaly false to the first one you made.



One reason for this might be the approach you exhibit yourself, which is characteristic of the IMT generally. The IMT has an a fairly self-righteous and fixed approach to analysis, leading to a situation where, like a stopped clock, you're right twice a day, but wrong for the rest.


Speculate and insult some more please with no proof and no backing of your opinion....
That's how you make positive contributions to the board?
I won't bother to answer mindless insults.



The Bolivarian revolution certainly needs all the input of marxist revolutionaries it can get, and the dissemination of said ideas as widely as possible. But for this to be successful, the various "tendencies" need to get over themselves a little, and focus on the struggle to organise, educate and help lead the working class in the key struggles, on the ground, not focus on the (possibly) fleeting allegiance of a minister, and the use of a particular presidential jet to go somewhere or other.

By having a minister on your side and especialy someone that has influence in the state media you can diffuse the ideas of Marxism to millions. That's what we are focusing on. The ground movement. But if a minister or whatever agrees with Marxism and our ideas and join, why close the door? We need to do the best we can so we can educate people on Marxism while not abandoning our theory , ideas etc.

While we do work in occupied factories, in unions, in the PSUV etc it is good to have some publicity etc.

[chebol]

With due respect, comrade OI, what you wrote was this:


"That is why only the IMT from all the other trotskyist sects plays a role in the PSUV and in Venezuela." (My emphasis).


No need to make up fairy-stories about the Fifth International or whoever. Just try to keep it real. Ok? Is that so hard? (Oh, and don't worry, I don't think you need to try to teach me about dialectics or party-building).

I didn't deny the very real existence of the IMT in Venezuela, nor that they are doing some good work. I reiterate what I said about the need for a greater dissemination of Marxist ideas throughout the revolution.

What I was taking issue with was the arrogant and febrile approach IMT members sometimes take to their advertising their tendency's role in the revolution. Your post was just such an example.

The DSP, for example, (the organisation I am a part of) has people deeply involved in the process as well. However, we are not trying to build an local grouping of any International or colonise the process. Nor do we carry on about it as much as IMT members do.

And I repeat, repect where respect is due for the work of all militants in the process, including those in the IMT. But let's refrain from pissing competitions like this:


"the CMR recruited a high profile Bolivarian (How high profile you have no idea)".


The sentence reeks of a petty one-upmanship all-too-familiar on the left, and is an attitude we can all do without. It also manages to avoid the discussion of the balance of forces and ideas at play in Venezuela, instead substituing for a classically sectarian "my grouplet is better than your grouplet" approach (which, thankfully, some of your other posts don't always show).


"By having a minister on your side and especialy someone that has influence in the state media you can diffuse the ideas of Marxism to millions."


Sure.



"That's what we are focusing on. The ground movement."

Well, that's not what it sounds like. The average IMT soundbite usually involves "Alan Woods", "Chavez", and reference to a book.


"But if a minister or whatever agrees with Marxism and our ideas and join, why close the door? We need to do the best we can so we can educate people on Marxism while not abandoning our theory , ideas etc."

I'm not disagreeing. As I pointed out above, I'm disagreeing with your arrogant approach to same, which is guaranteed to be a hindrance to your role in Venezuela, same as elsewhere.

[OI OI OI]

No need to make up fairy-stories about the Fifth International or whoever. Just try to keep it real. Ok? Is that so hard? (Oh, and don't worry, I don't think you need to try to teach me about dialectics or party-building).

I didn't deny the very real existence of the IMT in Venezuela, nor that they are doing some good work. I reiterate what I said about the need for a greater dissemination of Marxist ideas throughout the revolution.

What I was taking issue with was the arrogant and febrile approach IMT members sometimes take to their advertising their tendency's role in the revolution. Your post was just such an example.

The DSP, for example, (the organisation I am a part of) has people deeply involved in the process as well. However, we are not trying to build an local grouping of any International or colonise the process. Nor do we carry on about it as much as IMT members do.

And I repeat, repect where respect is due for the work of all militants in the process, including those in the IMT. But let's refrain from pissing competitions like this:

First of all what I meant was not that only the IMT is in the PSUV I meant that only the IMT has an impact and is known to the widest layers of the population.

I don't want to piss of anyone or advertise our work.

I am being realistic here. I support all other activists that are trying to do the same thing but I just point out the superiority of the work done by the IMT. This might sound really bad I know but it is the truth. Don't get me wrong I am not a petty sectarian.

Also I think that over the internet we really get into misundertandings. I think that if we talked personaly we would resolve our issues. That's just me though.


However, we are not trying to build an local grouping of any International or colonise the process.

The International is not there to colonize!
It is there to offer support to the people of Venezuela. Without the huge financial backing of the International and the ideological backing our work would not be that effective or not even noticeable. That I think makes a huge difference and determines who is going to have more effective. We are not competing here. We just try diffuse our views to the widest layers of the population. And without the international backing them the CMR would not have been what it is now.

Also the International has another role. With campaigns such as HOV we can offer International support to Venezuela in times of need and also promote the Venezuelan revolution to the widest layers of the population of any given country with a dual aim. One is to set it as an example and the second one is to of course combat the bourgeois propaganda against it.


The sentence reeks of a petty one-upmanship all-too-familiar on the left, and is an attitude we can all do without. It also manages to avoid the discussion of the balance of forces and ideas at play in Venezuela, instead substituing for a classically sectarian "my grouplet is better than your grouplet" approach (which, thankfully, some of your other posts don't always show).

I don't think that I ever said that the IMT is superior to all other groups .
I just said that for objective reasons we have more impact. That is determined by our ideas and by our methods and traditions.


Well, that's not what it sounds like. The average IMT soundbite usually involves "Alan Woods", "Chavez", and reference to a book.

Well Alan Woods and books serve as a "tool" to get more people into Marxism.
Alan Woods new book already sold more than 11 000 copies in Venezuela. I think the number have reached 15 000 but I am not sure. That is a huge success for the CMR .

Books and such stuff are essential tools for groundwork.
Also the advertisement done by Chavez for the CMR is also an important tool to recruit militants tot he CMR.


I'm disagreeing with your arrogant approach to same, which is guaranteed to be a hindrance to your role in Venezuela, same as elsewhere.

I don't agree that our approach is arrogant or that my approach can hinder anything since I don't matter that much especialy when I am posting on an Internet site

[Abluegreen7]

I stand fully by Hugo Chavez who wouldnt. Hes the future of socialism.