Chavez declares himself a Maoist in China

[Red October]

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/52959.html

What do you all make of this? I heard he also declared himself a Trotskyist at one point...

[GPDP]

I doubt he even knows what he's on about.

[Yehuda Stern]

Chavez is a populist - he says what he needs to to get support. Its hardly worth taking such statements seriously.

[Comrade B]

I heard he also declared himself a Trotskyist at one point...
Heard this one too, I think his focus is uniting the left. Apparently not doing that great of a job with it, but...

[Vendetta]

So basically he's gonna be anti-imperialist by playing lapdog for another rising imperialist state?

[Abluegreen7]

Reminds me of Pol Pot.

[Harrycombs]

Reminds me of Pol Pot.

Ouch! Thats a bit harsh.

I think Chaves is trying to do what he thinks is right. I give him my full support.

[Abluegreen7]

I didnt mean to compare him to the thing Pol Pot did I simply compared him to Pol Pot due to the fact Pol Pot lied about being Maoist to gain suppourt of China.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I think he's being opportunist.

[Harrycombs]

We can't be so picky about people in times like these. If the left stays so divided, nothing will ever get done.

You have to admit that he has definitely improved his country though.

[Abluegreen7]

You got to love Chavez though.

Hes the kind of guy that everyone loves but the United States.

[RedHal]

This is actually the second time Chavez called himself a Maoist, he said this back in 2005

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/South_America/CapitalismSavagery_Chavez.html



Friends and Enemies.

I have been a Maoist since I entered military school, I read Che Guevara, I read Bolivar and his speeches and letters, becoming a Bolivarian Maoist, a mixture of all that.

Mao says that it is imperative, for every revolutionary, to determine very clearly who are your friends and who are your enemies.

And yes I'm pretty sure he called himself a trotskyist, or atleast when he mentioned one of trotsky's works as his vision of 21st century socialism.

Obviously he's neither, he's a social democrat.

It's funny he declares himself a Maoist while in China, I guess he doesn't know that the current Chinese ruling class is hostile to maoists, such as the case of the Zhengzhou four
http://www.monthlyreview.org/0105commentary.htm

and if I'm not mistaken, China was on the side of the Monarchy during the Nepalese Maoist's people's war.

I sure hope Chavez doesn't declare himself a Stalinist, when he visits Russia :laugh:

[Harrycombs]

^
I don't think the Russians will care.

[Kitskits]

This bullshit reminds me of liberals posing as leftists (ex. SYRIZA party in my country Greece) that appeal to people who don't know the differences between mao and trotsky for example.

I believe that Chavez is one of two things: 1) A populist hypocrite with opportunistic aims, 2) A populist socialist who does everything in his hands to make the world believe he is a politically/socially progressive individual and build socialism in Venezuela peacefully.

I hope he is the second...

[Red October]

You got to love Chavez though.

Hes the kind of guy that everyone loves but the United States.

I don't love him. Just because the US government hates him doesn't mean we should support him and his blatant opportunism.

[Red October]

bump

[Mindtoaster]

I don't love him. Just because the US government hates him doesn't mean we should support him and his blatant opportunism.

To be honest he is very progressive compared to most politicians the modern world has to offer, and I certainly think it is our duty to *critically* support him, as he will do a lot of good for the people of Venezuela.

That said, his top-down approach to socialism will not bring revolutionary change to Venezuela, but I do think it will make a better life for the workers.

[cyu]

While I have no idea how Chavez really feels about Mao, I don't see anything strange if one person declares himself a Trotskyist one day and a Maoist the next.

While people on revleft might dig deep into the minutia of differences of political theory, they are both pretty much from the same general tradition.

It would be like someone who claims he's a follower of Christ one day and and applauding the laws of Moses the next.

[Sweetpotos]

While I have no idea how Chavez really feels about Mao, I don't see anything strange if one person declares himself a Trotskyist one day and a Maoist the next.

While people on revleft might dig deep into the minutia of differences of political theory, they are both pretty much from the same general tradition.

It would be like someone who claims he's a follower of Christ one day and and applauding the laws of Moses the next.

You can't tell the difference between Marxism and nationalism?

[RadioRaheem84]

Why is he aligning with neo-liberal China?

[JimmyJazz]

I would think that any Latin American who calls himself a 'Maoist' might simply have in mind the strain of guerrilla warfare thinking that goes from Mao to Che & Fidel and onward. This is purely a guess, though.

And yeah, I'm sure it is also opportunism.

[cyu]

You can't tell the difference between Marxism and nationalism?


Who are you saying is a Marxist and who are you saying is a nationalist?

When I say "same general tradition" - I'm not even lumping all Marxists together as distinct from all other leftists.

In biology, you can categorize organisms into kingdoms of plants, animals, fungi, etc... beyond that, you can then subdivide them, and so on.

In political theory, there's no way I'd put Marx at the level of a "kingdom" - I wouldn't even put communism or anarchism at the level of a "kingdom". I'd reserve the kingdom level of categorizations for much more general classifications like "supports the poor" and "supports the rich".

[FreeFocus]

I would think that any Latin American who calls himself a 'Maoist' might simply have in mind the strain of guerrilla warfare thinking that goes from Mao to Che & Fidel and onward. This is purely a guess, though.

And yeah, I'm sure it is also opportunism.

Judging by Chavez' telling to FARC that the time for armed resistance has passed, I have a feeling he doesn't have guerrilla warfare in mind.

I think Chavez is an opportunist, but he's done a lot of good things. At the same time, recently, he's embarked on some questionable ventures, like tightening relations with China and Russia. Still, that has to be viewed through the lens of international politics and counterbalancing US influence. I'd rather see a Latin America that plays major powers off of each than than one that is under the complete domination of a hegemonic imperialist.

[Comrade B]

Why is he aligning with neo-liberal China?A powerful ally that the US fears. This is the kind of thing I dislike that Chavez does. One should not place themselves in league with a powerful country just because they are not on the best of terms with the US.
It leads to debts to countries I am pretty sure we would not like to be associated with in the future.

[Zurdito]

To be honest he is very progressive compared to most politicians the modern world has to offer, and I certainly think it is our duty to *critically* support him, as he will do a lot of good for the people of Venezuela.

That said, his top-down approach to socialism will not bring revolutionary change to Venezuela, but I do think it will make a better life for the workers.

how about the workers at Sanitarios Maracay or SIDOR who were beaten, shot at and imprisoned by the Chavez government? Do you think they should "critically" support for him too?

Incidentally I am not a huge fan of the way this phase "critical" support is used by many. Critical support is meant to be given to someone who is leading a movement which rests on the working class and who was put in the leadership of that movement by the working class - i.e. you might in some circumstances critically support someone genuinely leading an organisation to some extent democratically controlled by the labour movement, if the labour movement through that organisation could genuinely exercise influence if the organisation got into power. Like Lenin with the British Labour Party in the 1920's, the idea is also to push that democracy to the limit, until the leadership is forced to curb it, and then you cause a crisis.

This therefore only works if the leadership is in power because the working class put them in power, and if that leadership getting into power means that same working class moving into a position where it is setting the agenda in government and where to curb this, there will need to be outright confrontation between the leadership and the working class which believes that it is coming to power by the leadership coming to power.

Finally it is a short-term process, which you are supposed to use to cause as much of a crisis as possible for the leadership the moment they turn on the class openly.

None of this is true regarding Chavez I am afraid.

[Pogue]

The man is actually building some form of socialism right under the nose of the Empire. He is a self proclaimed communist. He is doing it peacefully. It seems like shooting our collective selfs in our collectives legs to not support him in some degree.
Although they say when he announced he was a communist after he won a referendum, because he assumed the support for him meant the people supported communism, apparently the people were put off a bit. Kinda like when you're dating someone and then after 3 weeks they say they love you and you're like "Whoah slow down" :D

[Kitskits]

I hope he is a communist/maoist so we will see a fucking revolution in Venezuela and not reformist shit.

But I doubt it too...