The Pink Tide

[Pogue]

This is the wave of leftist governments in Latin America at the moment. Apparently 75% of people in Latin America live under a leftist government.
I think its brilliant and the closest we'll have to widespread socialism for a long time. Comrades?

[TheRedRevolutionary]

Your so called "leftist" govenments are petit bourgeois at best that is actually counter-revolutionary in the sense that they hold back the masses who yearn for a real revolution and a fundamental break with the capitalists. The means of production are all still held by the capitalists so the workers are still in chains. The bourgeoisie hopes to defeat revolutionary aspirations by churning out some populist who may or may not call himself a "socialist" but in the final analysis defends private property.

It is sad so many so called leftists and even revolutionaries have been tricked into supporting them.

[Pogue]

I support them for making principled left wing stands in a world dominated by neo-liberalism. Who says this isn't a revolution? And if the masses yearned for a 'real revolution' why haven't they had a 'real revolution'? And for christs sake, please look up the meaning of "petit bourgeois" and "counter-revolutionary", to avoid mis-using these terms in the future.

[Yehuda Stern]

Principled? Is supporting imperialist Russia in its war against Georgia principled? Is giving political support to the Iranian regime principled? Is attacking and murdering working class militants principled? Is promising for years and years socialism, but giving only more capitalism, principled? That isn't even principled for a good populist, let alone for a socialist.

[spice756]

Your so called "leftist" govenments are petit bourgeois

They are social democratic not bourgeois.Has the word bourgeois are capitalists or ruling class.And petit bourgeois are middle class or shop owners.



support them for making principled left wing stands in a world dominated by neo-liberalism

Well for sure they are social democratic or wannabe socialist but better than neo-liberalism who emphasizes the importance of economic growth and asserts that social justice is best maintained by minimal government interference and free market.

[Decolonize The Left]

This is the wave of leftist governments in Latin America at the moment. Apparently 75% of people in Latin America live under a leftist government.
I think its brilliant and the closest we'll have to widespread socialism for a long time. Comrades?

I am pleased that this socialist movement is taking place as it is beneficial to a great many people. It is also encouraging to see somewhat leftist ideas made public and mainstream and accepted by large groups of individuals.

On the other hand, as many other members have noted, these countries are governed by social democracies. They are still fundamentally capitalist in their economic systems (as they exist in a globalized capitalist world), and these governments often engage in many exploitative/oppressive/repressive activities.

We ought to support the theoretical movement of leftist ideals while at the same time critique the material realities.

- August

[Pogue]

Are you guys not being a tad unrealistic and ideologically 'pure' in your denounciations? I don't want to use the old argument used by some Marx-Leninsts on this forum, but these guys have been elected on left wing platforms by the working class who want a change, which they have got, and its left wing progress in a world lacking any revolutions or revolutionary groups. Democratic socialist revolution anyone? It's change isn't it, and its radical, in the current political climate.

[Yehuda Stern]

It's not change and it's not radical, it's throwing sand in the eyes of the working class, a process which many people like you are actively aiding. You say I'm unrealistic - I think you'll find that your ridiculous assertion that these governments can build socialism will be shattered completely in the short term.

[Pogue]

Sorry for rallying behind some physical change as opposed to insubstantial groups who bicker among each other and have no relation to the working class :(

[Yehuda Stern]

Physical change? That's a good joke. 10 years have passed and very, very little has changed. Your beloved left governments are no more actively oppressing the working class. Face it - like most leftists of our time, you want change coming not from the working class, but against the working class, forced upon the working class. You don't trust the workers to be able to become revolutionaries, so you want benevolent bourgeois politicians to do the job for them. In not too long, Chavez and Morales and their ilk will capitulate, set up dictatorships, or be toppled by the ruling class, and you'll be as helpless as an Allende supporter in 1974.

[Sendo]

so when Venezuela during the Chavez years doubled the income of the bottom 10%....that was bourgeois?

[Yehuda Stern]

Yes. It was part of a bourgeois approach called 'populism,' which stipulates that capitalism is more well equipped to survive when the state buys over the support of the poor and leftist intellectuals to use it later against the working class.

[Pogue]

Yes. It was part of a bourgeois approach called 'populism,' which stipulates that capitalism is more well equipped to survive when the state buys over the support of the poor and leftist intellectuals to use it later against the working class.

You call it populism. I call it democratic socialism. The people have shown their support for him in the votes and he has carried Venezeula in a socialist direction. Most others see this as socialism too. It's socialism.

[Yehuda Stern]

A socialism which oppresses and murders the workers. Wonderful. Scratch these fake leftists just a bit and you'll always find a Stalinist.

[Pogue]

So that's how your going to argue. I assumed as much. Way to make up for intellectual deficit with insults. Chavez's ideology contains many of the characteristics which we call socialism.
And aren't you a Trotskyist? Didn't he kill pople, workers? Hypocrite. :D

[Devrim]

You call it populism. I call it democratic socialism.
I call it a bourgeois government that shoots down striking workers in the streets.

Devrim

[rouchambeau]

I think its brilliant and the closest we'll have to widespread socialism for a long time.

If we resign ourselves to believing that the best we can have is what SA has, then we really resign ourselves to defeat and constant class struggle.

[Yehuda Stern]

No intellectual deficit. It's just a problem with us having a very large principled difference: we in the ISL believe that only the conscious working class can, with its own force, build socialism, while you believe that bourgeois politicians can do the job for the workers and even despite the workers, and even as they oppress those workers.

[rednordman]

It's not change and it's not radical, it's throwing sand in the eyes of the working class, a process which many people like you are actively aiding. You say I'm unrealistic - I think you'll find that your ridiculous assertion that these governments can build socialism will be shattered completely in the short term.
Blimey, Sure they are not perfect governments, and probably do not do the best job at being leftist. But for crying out loud, there generally ten times better than the right-wing dictators of the past.
Things that make me wonder is how in Venezuela, all i have heard is worried stories from rich venezuelians, like all that matters is thier finacial prosperity, and hardly anything from the actual poor. In this situation it would be better to hear what the poor think.
I believe that the most recent elections (high percentage of votes) generally tell the real picture, allthough I do believe that both Chavez and Morales could probably have pushed more progressive reforms. On that note, i personally do not believe that it is the leaders and governments that are so much the problem, it is the reactionary wealthy who live 10 times better lives than the poor. They are the first to scream 'communism' towards the USA when the state ever tries to help the poor with health care and life improvement. Chavez and Morales both have the impossible job of keeping them (the rich) happy, while trying to impliment socialism. No wonder things do not go brilliantly.
ps. if you have any info/links on the relationship between the state and the poor (oppression, etc) than my position may change, but as far as i'm concerned, the so called leftist leaders of South America are in an untenable position (regardless of politcal persuasion) so long as there is such a vocal and powerfull upper-class.:(

[BobKKKindle$]

The Chavez government and other governments which have come to power in Latin America are ultimately populist, which means they use socialist rhetoric to sustain the loyalty of the working class but have not challenged the basis of the capitalist system because they have gained power through bourgeois political processes, and are also willing to use the force of the state against workers who have attempted to establish genuine workers power. Socialism can only be created through the unified action of the proletariat, and the overthrow of capitalism must involve the destruction of the bourgeois state and the construction of a new state apparatus which breaks down the division between politics and economics and allows for the extensive participation of the working class through structures based in individual workplaces, not geographical constituencies.

[Yehuda Stern]

there generally ten times better than the right-wing dictators of the past.

That's like saying that Obama is better than Hitler and therefore you should vote for Obama. Did Chavez and Morales topple the dictatorships? Did their election bring down any dictatorship? The hell does that have to do with anything?


In this situation it would be better to hear what the poor think.

I prefer to hear what the workers think. The workers think that they are being shot at and that the more militant of their leaders are getting sacked by the government. Not great.


Chavez and Morales both have the impossible job of keeping them (the rich) happy, while trying to impliment socialism.

And why is that? Why do we have to keep the rich "happy"? Why do we have to care about what they scream to the US?


as far as i'm concerned, the so called leftist leaders of South America are in an untenable position (regardless of politcal persuasion) so long as there is such a vocal and powerfull upper-class.

Then you could've saved yourself writing all those paper-thin arguments and just said - "I don't believe revolution is possible, therefore I support Chavez and Morales." Consciously or not, that is the reasoning of all the Chavistas and Morales supporters.

[Sendo]

Populism is not a dirty word. It means appealing to the wishes of the majority. In a society that is leftist it means you'll get social democracy, which is progressive. In a society that is Catholic, unfortunately, this also means that you'll have abortions be illegal.

I don't think you can force our brand of leftism on people. Implement what you can, empower the people, and educate, and then popular feeling will be identical to anarchism/socialism/communism. I favor making strides where you can (not sitting by on the sidelines) and educating people, not becoming a dictator who's self-appointed to represent "working-class interests".

The Populist movement of the late 1800s was one of the most leftist movements in the USA and carried not only entryist and reformist wings but revolutionary wings as well, before it became subverted and crippled during the 1896 and 1900 presidential elections. Admittedly, the Socialist Party made many more electoral gains it seems, but the populists/farmer's alliance was most successful for the parts of the USA that are now the most socially conservative and right-wing in voting.

I can't understand why giving people what they want is so bad. I'd rather take the errs that populism and mass line would create than make myself some "Marxist" emperor. At the very least that's justice: empowering common people. If people are regressive in their thinking only time and education can change them.

[BobKKKindle$]

Populism is not a dirty word. It means appealing to the wishes of the majority

The "majority" can never have a united set of interests in a society based on class division - as long as capitalism continues to exist the working class will suffer economic exploitation and will be denied access to political power due to the illusory nature of bourgeois democracy, which exists solely to obscure the fact that we are all living in a class society where the rich are able to use their wealth to control the political process and ensure that their interests are protected by the government. The role of the vanguard is not to sit by and watch the workers elect a government which uses socialist rhetoric, instead the vanguard must actively engage with the working class by intervening in local struggles to raise the level of consciousness and ultimately leading the overthrow of capitalism.

[rednordman]

And why is that? Why do we have to keep the rich "happy"? Why do we have to care about what they scream to the US?.
We don't, the problem is that the USA do not care for what workers think, in fact they detest it, and they always give the moral high ground to the rich. Like it or not, if there is to be a communist revolution anywhere in the world, there is absolutly no doubt, that the US and Nato will go to war against it and support the counter-revolutionaries. Do you seriously think that there is a revolutionary force within south america that can stand up to that. If there is any justice in this world then yes, they would totally cream the US and Nato, but sadly, looking at history there is very little (mind you stranger things have happened). That is exactly why the would definitly need to form alligences with other leftist countries and certainly, though not leftist, Russia (for arms mainly), at least Chavez looks up for doing that.


Then you could've saved yourself writing all those paper-thin arguments and just said - "I don't believe revolution is possible, therefore I support Chavez and Morales." Consciously or not, that is the reasoning of all the Chavistas and Morales supporters.
Hold on a minute here. I havent even claimed that i support either and if they really are shooting at workers and sacking millitant unionists than that is obviously very dissapointing. I'm just trying to take positives from it, but if they are actually oppressive, than its not a good sign.
Its not that i do not believe revolution is not possible, its just that I believe that such a thing would be even harder in todays day and age than it was in Russia all those years ago and their would be alot more complications.

[BobKKKindle$]

Do you seriously think that there is a revolutionary force within south america that can stand up to that

If the working class did come to power in any country, their first and most important task would be to encourage revolutionary struggles in other countries to ensure that they are not left isolated and faced with the threat of imperialist intervention, as occurred in Soviet Russia following the defeat of the German revolution in 1923 and the failure of other revolutionary struggles. Although this may appear to be a difficult task, however, the emergence of a genuine socialist government would give an enormous boost to other revolutionary movements fighting to gain state power - the economic effects of a socialist government coming to power would compel the workers of other countries to discard their support for reformist parties and enter into direct revolutionary struggle with the forces of the bourgeoisie to defend their conditions, the socialist government would also be able to provide material support to revolutionary movement which would enhance their ability to gain the support of the workers and ultimately defeat the state if armed confrontation arose, and most importantly a socialist government would be symbolically important as a living example of what workers can do when they join together and take control of the political apparatus and the productive forces. Even if efforts to spread the revolution were unsuccessful (unlikely, given the intensity and scope of popular discontent throughout the world, even in the advanced countries) it is wrong to assume that the socialist government would automatically be removed from power and replaced with a capitalist regime, because if the government is genuinely socialist, the workers and other oppressed strata would come to its defense by taking up arms against the imperialist forces, which could potentially lead to the successful defense of the revolution, judging by the success of the Iraqi resistence and other anti-imperialist movements.

[Yehuda Stern]

Rednorman: I understand that you say you support a revolution. I don't doubt your sincerity here. But from what you write, it's pretty clear that on a deeper level, as much as you would like to have a revolution, you do not believe it to be possible. As Alan Woods* himself is so fond of saying, if we had to depend on imperialism's tolerance of a socialist revolution to succeed, we would always fail.

In fact, your outlook is very common among the left today. This left postulates that since imperialism is very strong; since the working class is weak, and supposedly shows no signs of gaining strength; since the workers have not succeeded in building revolutionary organizations for many decades; then there is no hope for an independent, revolutionary working class party to come to being, and given that, the work of a building socialism must be delegated to the future, when benevolent bourgeois politicians would be more willing to do so. And even then, they will depend on the mercy of the imperialists.

If in the meantime, if workers who do believe, unlike you, that they know better how to take care of their own interests than the populist governments, "act up," then it may be "disappointing" that they must be shot - but your kind of left prefers to "stay positive" and not let that disrupt with cheerleading in favor of the populists.

That is unfortunate. It is unfortunate that the pack of dishonest hacks that form the leadership of today's "Trotskyist" groups manages to force this cynical outlook upon new recruits. But revolutionaries will simply have to move on and try to form truly revolutionary organizations in Latin America, the shrieks of the IMT / CWI / USFI / what-have-yous about 'sectarianism' notwithstanding.

*Yeah, I know, I can't believe I'm even paraphrasing Woods either

[rednordman]

@bobkindles:
Good response, but i'm sometimes allittle bit worried as to how far the USA will actually go with something like this, Especially if it is against capitalism. Nepal had all but an armed revolution, and now even the maoists seem to be going the way of parlament. Which isn't always a bad thing, but there is only so-much on can do through parlament as we all know. The maoist rebels were for ages, on one of the world terrorist lists of the CIA and if they where to have a full scale revolution that would probably mean full scale isolation (like North Korea) which could be devastating (the same applies to S America). This is just one of the problems that the USA and NATO would thrust at them. Your response did give me hope though:). Who knows what the future holds, as there is definitly more aggitation now (even in the West though they do not realise it yet). Hopefully you will be proven right.

[rednordman]

Rednorman: I understand that you say you support a revolution. I don't doubt your sincerity here. But from what you write, it's pretty clear that on a deeper level, as much as you would like to have a revolution, you do not believe it to be possible. As Alan Woods* himself is so fond of saying, if we had to depend on imperialism's tolerance of a socialist revolution to succeed, we would always fail.

In fact, your outlook is very common among the left today. This left postulates that since imperialism is very strong; since the working class is weak, and supposedly shows no signs of gaining strength; since the workers have not succeeded in building revolutionary organizations for many decades; then there is no hope for an independent, revolutionary working class party to come to being, and given that, the work of a building socialism must be delegated to the future, when benevolent bourgeois politicians would be more willing to do so. And even then, they will depend on the mercy of the imperialists.

If in the meantime, if workers who do believe, unlike you, that they know better how to take care of their own interests than the populist governments, "act up," then it may be "disappointing" that they must be shot - but your kind of left prefers to "stay positive" and not let that disrupt with cheerleading in favor of the populists.

That is unfortunate. It is unfortunate that the pack of dishonest hacks that form the leadership of today's "Trotskyist" groups manages to force this cynical outlook upon new recruits. But revolutionaries will simply have to move on and try to form truly revolutionary organizations in Latin America, the shrieks of the IMT / CWI / USFI / what-have-yous about 'sectarianism' notwithstanding.

*Yeah, I know, I can't believe I'm even paraphrasing Woods either
Good reponse also, although i wouldnt describe myself as a supporter of populists or a troskyist. I'v not been filled in much about this shooting and stuff, so if that is the case than its certain Chavez is not the man to take things forward.

[Yehuda Stern]

That's not good enough, I'm afraid. It's not just that Chavez oppresses workers - it's that his policies, analyzed from a Marxist perspective, would show this in advance. It's not that I would support Chavez before all this started.

[PostAnarchy]

If he did commit crimes against workers though I would be disappointed in that and would be just another reaffirmation of his reformist politics.

[La Comédie Noire]

What's going on in Venezuela and co. is nice, but it's not revolutionary. They've given out some crumbs purchased with money from the flourishing petrol market; Which just goes to show you the ruling class must be making a ton of money.

It reminds me of when robber barons like Rockefellar would build a public library or hospital. If they can bare to part with that kind of money imagine how much they keep for themselves.

Working class revolution is about taking it all.