Chavez Clashes with Communist Party of Venezuela over Candidacies

[KurtFF8]

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/3871


October 13th 2008, by James Suggett - Venezuelanalysis.com
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/files/imagecache/medium/files/images/2008/10/figuera_982.jpg (http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/files/images/2008/10/figuera_982.jpg)

Mérida, October 13, 2008 (venezuelanalysis.com)-- Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez threatened to "sweep off the map" the Venezuelan Communist Party (PCV) and fellow leftist party Patria Para Todos (PPT), both of which have launched alternative candidacies to those of Chávez's United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) in the upcoming November 23rd regional and local elections. PCV and PPT leaders responded that it is their commitment to the revolution which compels them to remain independent.

"We must throw out the traitors, the deserters, those who were not at the height of commitment to the people," said Chávez during a PSUV rally in the state of Trujillo. "They are moved by personal interests, and they are playing into the division of the popular forces that support the revolutionary process, so I call them disloyal and counter-revolutionary."

Chávez repeated his previous challenge to the PCV and PPT party leadership to see if they are viable without his support. "We are going to sweep them off the map... they are going to disappear! I will take care of that, be sure of it," said the president.

PPT leader Andrea Tavares responded, "We are a revolutionary organization, not because someone puts a label on our foreheads, but because we demonstrate it with deeds."

The national coordinator of the PPT, José Albornoz, demanded that Chávez be more careful and respectful, and told the press Monday, "Our struggle is to construct a better country... our plan is to help consolidate the revolution, that is why our behavior is revolutionary."

Albornoz also assured that the PPT would not renege on its candidate decisions and said Chávez's remarks reminded him of "old sociological and political readings where Stalin was mentioned."

Oscar Figuera, a national coordinator of the PCV, said his party is running alternative candidates "out of commitment to the revolution."

"No self-valuing revolution can be anti-communist," said Figuera in an interview with alternative media Sunday. "Pertinence to the PSUV should not determine pertinence to the revolution."

When President Chávez called on the political parties that support him to unite into one party in 2007, 95% of PCV members voted to remain independent, according to PCV leader Oscar Figuera.

Following the PSUV's internal party elections last June, the PCV decided to support PSUV candidates in 16 of Venezuela's 23 states, but it launched independent candidacies in the other 6 states.

"We have just completed 77 years struggling for socialism in Venezuela," Figuera said, emphasizing that those who seek to sabotage the revolution are not the communists.

The PCV leader criticized the PSUV because "there was not a qualitative evaluation" of PSUV membership, so anybody, including the boss of a factory and the workers, could register. In contrast, "the Communist Party has a classist profile, with a clearly defined ideology," said Figuera.

Figuera said his party "shares the anti-imperialist character" of the PSUV, "but that is not sufficient for us."

Chávez however, called this "the classic behavior of the old partisanship. "They simply do not recognize leadership, and that is the heart of the question. They have their own plan," he said.

Figuera said he understands the president's critique in the context of a heated "electoral dispute," but speculated, "It must hurt his conscience to say such things." Figuera reiterated that Chávez will not be able to destroy the PCV, just as the dictatorships and two-party rule of the century prior to Chávez could not destroy the party.

Both the PCV and PPT remain in the coalition of pro-Chávez parties called the Patriotic Alliance. PSUV officials promised to re-examine the alliance with the PPT and PCV at this week's coalition meeting. The PSUV already broke its alliance with the party Gente Emergente for supporting an opposing candidate for governor of Barinas state.

[Die Neue Zeit]

My reaction to this is mixed.

In regards to his reaction towards the PCV and bosses in the PSUV: :thumbdown:

In regards to his reaction towards malcontents of similar politics not folding into the PSUV: :thumbup:

[Schrödinger's Cat]

If the MSM picks this up, I'd be interesting in seeing how they spin this. "Chavez isn't leftist enough..."

[JimmyJazz]

Well it's good that neither side has any shortage of vague sectarian rhetoric. We will need lots of that if we are ever going to defeat capitalism.

[R_P_A_S]

i would like more info on the communist party of venezuela. what are they all about? how are they viewed by the working class?

[Labor Shall Rule]

I think it's safe to say that Chavez's "shift to the left" (that a lot of posters predicted) is over.

The last “revolutionary” thing that he did was expel the American ambassador, but since then he's been uncomfortably comfy with Uribe (vis-a-vis distancing himself from Colombian liberation movements), and the pursuing of more referendums has been relaxed (and not even discussed) since it's last defeat to right-wing agitation. The shedding of those 'socialist'-sympathetic credentials (at least for now) is nevertheless disappointing.

I'd like to know what triggered their break-away from the PSUV electoral-alliance. They are (historically) 'reformist' in the strictest sense, so Chavez's political mold seems to be a comfortable spot for them.

[Glenn Beck]

I think it's safe to say that Chavez's "shift to the left" (that a lot of posters predicted) is over.

The last “revolutionary” thing that he did was expel the American ambassador, but since then he's been uncomfortably comfy with Uribe (vis-a-vis distancing himself from Colombian liberation movements), and the pursuing of more referendums has been relaxed (and not even discussed) since it's last defeat to right-wing agitation. The shedding of those 'socialist'-sympathetic credentials (at least for now) is nevertheless disappointing.

I'd like to know what triggered their break-away from the PSUV electoral-alliance. They are (historically) 'reformist' in the strictest sense, so Chavez's political mold seems to be a comfortable spot for them.

What triggered the break afaik is that the PCV wanted to continue to run their own independent electoral campaigns even running candidates in opposition to the PSUV candidate in certain races which would split the left vote in order to make some stupid point that the Communists are "still around". Personally I think the PCV blew it on this one. I read an article from a PCV member on aporrea (in spanish) which said that the PCV's job should be to propagandize and steer the PSUV in a revolutionary direction, and leave the electoral reformism to the PSUV. I pretty much agree. Running intermittent electoral campaigns hasn't been what has kept the PCV alive (barely!) all these decades. What makes them think doing so now when there is a broad party of the left whose ideology is so far up for grabs is good for the revolution?

Another party involved in this scandal was some social-democrat left-nationalist party called Patria Para Todos, but fuck them, I guess. Nobody cares.

[Wanted Man]

This has been going on for longer. Sometime last year, Chávez made a statement akin to "If you're not with us, you're against us", referring to the PCV's refusal to merge with the PSUV. He also criticised them for protesting against Uribe this summer. Apparently, anyone who does not step in line with Chávez's single party is a target for prosecution. Forming a revolutionary workers' party is apparently not a priority at all.

I understand the criticism of "splitting the left vote", but I wonder if that's really all there is to it. Maybe in those 6 regions, the PCV feel that they have much more to offer than the PSUV. According to the PCV, in some regions, the PSUV leaders are only representing the interests of the bourgeoisie. A logical consequence, as the PSUV is essentially a bourgeois party. In any case, it has been coming for a long time. They are well within their right to support Chávez without merging into a bourgeois party.

And yes, the PPT, PODEMOS, etc. can go fuck themselves.

Some earlier articles on this:

Chávez's ultimatum to PCV and PPT (http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/3679)
Chávez criticises allies (http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/3638)
Chávez kisses and makes up with Uribe, criticises PCV protest (http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/3639)
Chávez says allies who won't merge are almost in opposition (http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/2286)
Counter-attack of the bureaucrats (http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/3247)

[Herman]

The Communist Party of Venezuela is an opportunist party.

[Honggweilo]

The Communist Party of Venezuela is an opportunist party.
care to elaborate a bit further? I'm under the impression the PSUV are the oppertuinists in this case towards the PCV. The PCV analysis on the unstability of , and ofcourse the gross of reactionairy/oppertuinist ellements within in the PSUV (which alberto rojas admitted) and their choice to remain an independent supportive party is nothing controversial, its the arrogance of the PSUV to force the PCV to dissolve that is bothering me. The PCV has alot of dominance in the trade-unions and isnt prepared to just leave that into the hands of unstable and unexperienced party.

Its pretty ironic to call the PCV oppertuinist while Chavez is kissing up to Uribe

[Wanted Man]

The Communist Party of Venezuela is an opportunist party.
Ye gods. This is what's annoying about hardcore uncritical chavistas. Conditionally supporting Chávez's reformist 'revolution' is one thing (something that the PCV does, in fact), but to do so unconditional is to be blind towards the other things that are going on. How is it 'opportunist' to pose a serious left-wing workers' alternative in regions where the right-wing of 'chavism' is dominates the PSUV? It would be true right-opportunism if the PCV would ignore it, or, with the intention of 'preserving unity', join up with the right-wing to get some cushy government jobs.

What's disappointing is that Chávez and gang have been ambivalent about this for a long time, and are now apparently siding with the right in this issue. Apparently, it's easier to choose the 'path of least resistance' that strengthens the boli-bourgeoisie, while happily throwing an ally that actually wants to press on the advantage and continuate the revolution under the bus.

[Honggweilo]

also this statement by the PCV itself is pretty self-explaining (in engllish)

http://www.pcv-venezuela.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3013&Itemid=71

[Yehuda Stern]

The PSUV is opportunist, and the PCV is opportunist. Both parties' connection to the working class is unclear, but since the PSUV is a populist bourgeois party there is absolutely no reason why a communist should dissolve his organization or suggest that a workers' party, even a reformist one, dissolve itself to join it. That, in fact, would be class betrayal.

[Charles Xavier]

Lets be clear, Hugo Chavez may be a socialist, but he isn't a communist.

[Dean]

Chavez has clearly had an about-face. I'm sure this was a long time coming, but his abandonment of the FARC-EP and this are simply too much.

[Herman]

care to elaborate a bit further? I'm under the impression the PSUV are the oppertuinists in this case towards the PCV. The PCV analysis on the unstability of , and ofcourse the gross of reactionairy/oppertuinist ellements within in the PSUV (which alberto rojas admitted) and their choice to remain an independent supportive party is nothing controversial, its the arrogance of the PSUV to force the PCV to dissolve that is bothering me. The PCV has alot of dominance in the trade-unions and isnt prepared to just leave that into the hands of unstable and unexperienced party.

Its pretty ironic to call the PCV oppertuinist while Chavez is kissing up to Uribe


Ye gods. This is what's annoying about hardcore uncritical chavistas. Conditionally supporting Chávez's reformist 'revolution' is one thing (something that the PCV does, in fact), but to do so unconditional is to be blind towards the other things that are going on. How is it 'opportunist' to pose a serious left-wing workers' alternative in regions where the right-wing of 'chavism' is dominates the PSUV? It would be true right-opportunism if the PCV would ignore it, or, with the intention of 'preserving unity', join up with the right-wing to get some cushy government jobs.

What's disappointing is that Chávez and gang have been ambivalent about this for a long time, and are now apparently siding with the right in this issue. Apparently, it's easier to choose the 'path of least resistance' that strengthens the boli-bourgeoisie, while happily throwing an ally that actually wants to press on the advantage and continuate the revolution under the bus.

I'm critical of the leaders of the PSUV and their right-wing deviation, but i'm also critical of some of the actions taken in the past by the PCV.

They supported Rafael Caldera in the 1993 presidential election. So did several other left-wing parties. They basically jumped at the opportunity, since Caldera had made some typical social-liberal promises of social security and other stuff.

[Honggweilo]

I'm critical of the leaders of the PSUV and their right-wing deviation, but i'm also critical of some of the actions taken in the past by the PCV.

They supported Rafael Caldera in the 1993 presidential election. So did several other left-wing parties. They basically jumped at the opportunity, since Caldera had made some typical social-liberal promises of social security and other stuff.

So what? after decades of militairy dictatorship supporting an bourgeois democratic candidate is nothing out of the ordinary... Its about as oppertuinistic PSOE's decission to desolve the republican goverment and reconcile with the spanish monarchy after franco.

and what does that have to do with this specific issue anyway? its a bit of an ad hominem.

[KurtFF8]

I will have to say that this move to put the PCV in an independent position makes me glad that at least there are still some communist parties that hold true to being revolutionary organizations. If PCV just uncritically supported Chavez, we would likely see some of the same criticisms that CPUSA gets for supporting the Democrats (although it would of course be different, as Chavez actually claims he is trying to build socialism and the Dems are obviously not).

[Hiero]

The PCV is on the right track.

The Marxist-Leninist party will always be different to the nationalist/populist party. Eventually the contradiction between the two will sharpen into opposition.

The PSUV can talk as much rhetoric it wants, but it will never be a revolutionary party untill it's revolutionary language and action is about the working class overthrowing the bourgeoisie class and enforcing dictatorship of the proleteriat. It is a populist party that in the long run becomes incompatible with the proleteriat movement and the Marxist-Leninist party. Merging with a populist party is death for the Communist Party, in the merger it reconiles differences, that means quieten down Marxism-Leninist politics and the idea of complete and utter defeat of the bourgeoisie class by the proleteriat.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Um, how is Chavez in his dealings with the Boliburguesa any different from Mao and the "national bourgeoisie"?

[Reclaimed Dasein]

I always feel very conflicted about Venezuela. Chavez seems to clearly be a left populist which means he puts ultimate stock in the people. So far as the people remain commited to progressive movements, this works well. Yet, because his faith is in the people rather than a revolutionary ideology as such, he can easily run afoul. I'm sympathetic to the communist remaining independent for this reason.

I don't know how this will all work out, but I hope that the various communist groups supplant the more right wing groups as the "loyal opposition". I also pray that Chavez's "wipe them off the map" comments are just a metaphor for an election landslide.

[SEKT]

Chavez=stalin mimicker , so what do you expect from him? To try to build socialism?

Are you kidding me?

Unless sectarism is avoided from your positions you will continue applauding clowns like this!!!!

[Reclaimed Dasein]

Chavez=stalin mimicker , so what do you expect from him? To try to build socialism?

Are you kidding me?

Unless sectarism is avoided from your positions you will continue applauding clowns like this!!!!

Let me ask you this. Do more or less people go to bed hungry tonight because of Hugo Chavez? Are more or less of Venezuela's means of production under the control of the nation and the people?

I've often wondered this about many people on this thread. What is so morally problematic about viewing things as morally problematic? I Chavez perfect? Absolutely not. Should he even be emulated? Probably not. Is he doing more to fight capitalism than almost any Western European and United States' leftist? That seems clearly to be yes.

[Honggweilo]

^^^ Um, how is Chavez in his dealings with the Boliburguesa any different from Mao and the "national bourgeoisie"?

http://graphitefurnace.blogs.com/main/cultural_revolution2.jpg

http://images.google.nl/url?q=http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/05_02/venezuelaPA_468x331.jpg&usg=AFQjCNF6Opnfv9xVeIwtg_ItJg91y9Jt9A

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ That first picture is mostly likely one of a comprador, though, as opposed to one who's part of the "bloc of four classes."

[bootleg42]

Yet, because his faith is in the people rather than a revolutionary ideology as such, he can easily run afoul.

This is the biggest problem of various parts of the revolutionary left and the such.

I'd rather have faith in people and human nature because they are beautiful and, as we've seen, very socialist in many aspects.

[Yehuda Stern]

I've often wondered this about many people on this thread. What is so morally problematic about viewing things as morally problematic? I Chavez perfect? Absolutely not. Should he even be emulated? Probably not. Is he doing more to fight capitalism than almost any Western European and United States' leftist? That seems clearly to be yes.

But he is not fighting capitalism - he is fighting just a part of the Venezuelan bourgeoisie, which may or may not be the majority, that enjoys the support of imperialism and therefore opposes Chavez's attempts to make Venezuela more independent. This means that in essence he is representing the Bolibourgeoisie - the "national bourgeoisie" - against the "compradors." This is not anti-capitalism, it's just populism, which is a 100% capitalist.

That doesn't go to say that whatever positive reforms come out of Chavez's regime, we shouldn't protect. But the workers of Venezuela will be in a much better position to defend their own gains by themselves, not through the work of some dubious benefactor.

[Herman]

So what? after decades of militairy dictatorship supporting an bourgeois democratic candidate is nothing out of the ordinary... Its about as oppertuinistic PSOE's decission to desolve the republican goverment and reconcile with the spanish monarchy after franco.

The Military dictatorship pretty much ended in the 50's, when the Pacto of Punto Fijo was declared (essentially the two major parties promised each other to marginalize all the other parties, so that they both would exchange the presidency and government).

Although it's "nothing out of the ordinary", they quickly jumped in the wagon with Chavez, after his victory in 1996. So did other leftist parties which could be considered Democratic Socialist. One of them for example was MAS (Movement Towards Socialism), which later on became part of the opposition.


and what does that have to do with this specific issue anyway? its a bit of an ad hominem.

I simply say that i'd take what both Chavez and Oscar Figuera say with a grain of salt.

[SEKT]

Let me ask you this. Do more or less people go to bed hungry tonight because of Hugo Chavez? Are more or less of Venezuela's means of production under the control of the nation and the people?

I've often wondered this about many people on this thread. What is so morally problematic about viewing things as morally problematic? I Chavez perfect? Absolutely not. Should he even be emulated? Probably not. Is he doing more to fight capitalism than almost any Western European and United States' leftist? That seems clearly to be yes.

The fact that more or less people don't go to bed hungry doesnot mean it justify Chavez, is like if you were saying that if in the US more or less people go to bed hungry because of Bush, you can change the phrase for any other country, it simply is not the point!!!!! The point is that with the degeneration of "socialism" under Chavez policies the social order still exist in conditions of oppression, sectarism, hierarchization, so if the control of their lives is not under each person's choice it is not socialism!!!!

Now I challenge you to show that in Venezuela the control of means of production by the STATE (a group of bureaucrats and bourgeois) is the control of the means of production by the PEOPLE (EXPLOITED CLASS UNDER THE HIERARCHIC SOCIETY). I think you are making this equation: STATE=PEOPLE which is completely wrong.

Finally this is not a "moral" problem is a class struggle problem which doesn't implies "morality" as in your bourgeois view. The problem is that concrete, historical and more than that real humans are exploited again by a group of people that claim they are the true "saviors" and the "GLORIUOS LEADER" is the worst of them.

Maybe this quote by George Orwell can clarify your ideas:

War is peace. FREEDOM IS SLAVERY. IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

[Herman]

Maybe this quote by George Orwell can clarify your ideas:

Posting quotes from Orwell makes me take you less seriously.

[SEKT]

posting quotes from orwell makes me take you less seriously.
why???

Isn't what most of the governments on earth do?

[Reclaimed Dasein]

The fact that more or less people don't go to bed hungry doesnot mean it justify Chavez, is like if you were saying that if in the US more or less people go to bed hungry because of Bush, you can change the phrase for any other country, it simply is not the point!!!!! The point is that with the degeneration of "socialism" under Chavez policies the social order still exist in conditions of oppression, sectarism, hierarchization, so if the control of their lives is not under each person's choice it is not socialism!!!!

Now I challenge you to show that in Venezuela the control of means of production by the STATE (a group of bureaucrats and bourgeois) is the control of the means of production by the PEOPLE (EXPLOITED CLASS UNDER THE HIERARCHIC SOCIETY). I think you are making this equation: STATE=PEOPLE which is completely wrong.

So please, tell me a regime in Latin American that view as more progressive? I think you're the one missing the point. It's not only sufficient criteria that "more or less people" go to bed hungry, but it is a necessary one. If the goal of global revolutionary liberation doesn't aim at alleviating the suffering of humanity, whether it achieves it or not, then I don't think it deserves our lives.

Let me also ask you this, are more of the means of production on the state's control? The answer is yes. You point out that the state is not the people. I couldn't agree more, but now when a truly communist party comes to power, it has a much better historical position to work from. Again, I'm not saying Chavez is perfect, only that he's better than before and gives us a better chance at the future.


Finally this is not a "moral" problem is a class struggle problem which doesn't implies "morality" as in your bourgeois view. The problem is that concrete, historical and more than that real humans are exploited again by a group of people that claim they are the true "saviors" and the "GLORIUOS LEADER" is the worst of them.

Oh please, explain to me my "morality" since clearly you're an expert in ethics and morality. When did I ever say Chavez was the "GLORIUOS [sic] LEADER"? I'm not even sure what you're advocating for. Are you saying we should just abandon the field of ethics and morality to the reactionaries? Since you don't know a thing about my "morality" and I'd wager morality in general, I'd ask you not to make ad hominem attacks upon it.


Maybe this quote by George Orwell can clarify your ideas:

Maybe you should read more Orwell. Orwell came to Spain as a reporter. He was so impressed by the powerful, progressive, but far from perfect Republicans that he joined their movement. Show me that from the material conditions before in Venezuela that Hugo Chavez is worse then that. The very second that he cracks down on the Communists and Leftists I will withdraw any support from him, but we should hold a position of cautious support for him.

[SEKT]

tell me a regime in Latin American that view as more progressive? I think you're the one missing the point. It's not only sufficient criteria that "more or less people" go to bed hungry, but it is a necessary one. If the goal of global revolutionary liberation doesn't aim at alleviating the suffering of humanity, whether it achieves it or not, then I don't think it deserves our lives.I never mean that not being hungry was not necessary but what I attack as false is the mystification of oppresion under the cover of "alleviating the suffering of humanity" which is nothing but vacumm phrase in first place because humanity as a homogenic entity doesn't exist, there are capitalist, workers, lumperproletarians, a real division of what you call "humanity" and not all of them are "suffering", you can ask the exploiters if they suffer whenever they steal surplus from a worker. I really don't think that how "progressive" is a regime is the real concern, if by this you understand any kind of organization that "helps people" but it use coercion against the individuals, then no regime in Latin America is Progressive (a regime is a set of people not a thing so the people that rule the organization doesn't look for the liberation of the human beings because it means that they are going to lose its provileges by doing this as Chavez).


Let me also ask you this, are more of the means of production on the state's control? The answer is yes. You point out that the state is not the people. I couldn't agree more, but now when a truly communist party comes to power, it has a much better historical position to work from. Again, I'm not saying Chavez is perfect, only that he's better than before and gives us a better chance at the future.A TRUE COMMUNIST PARTY??? WTF!!!!!
If a true communist party is an organization that still uses the working class to legitimaze themselves and at the same time create a new hierarchical order I prefer to create a not true communist party. I think that you still believe in the Bolshevik doctrine of the party which is only the ideological mistification of STATE CAPITALISM WHICH IS STILL CAPITALISM.


Oh please, explain to me my "morality" since clearly you're an expert in ethics and morality. When did I ever say Chavez was the "GLORIUOS [sic] LEADER"? I'm not even sure what you're advocating for. Are you saying we should just abandon the field of ethics and morality to the reactionaries? Since you don't know a thing about my "morality" and I'd wager morality in general, I'd ask you not to make ad hominem attacks upon it.Let's give you a morality class. First morality implies to be rational, how can someone say that something is rational and thus moral? by analizing if the mattern of concern helps to liberation, liberty is the only moral for the revolution.
So morality is not abandoned to the reactionaries because they are not rational because they still think that oppression is good. Maybe you are going to tell me that you completely agree in this concern but by supporting a form of oppression as the Chavez' regime I really doubt that you think in a rational way, more than that I think your thought is mistified by burgeois morality as: "well we are not free but we eat ok so no problem". The problem of not being hungry will be eliminated when the direct producers take the control of their lifes and not being in control of a "true communist party".

Maybe you should read more Orwell. Orwell came to Spain as a reporter. He was so impressed by the powerful, progressive, but far from perfect Republicans that he joined their movement. Show me that from the material conditions before in Venezuela that Hugo Chavez is worse then that. The very second that he cracks down on the Communists and Leftists I will withdraw any support from him, but we should hold a position of cautious support for him.About the Spanish republic you sholud know that it was organized in the form of councils, with direct control of each person, not ruled by the "true communist party" (though there was participation of Stalinist).
Finally and I strongly suggest to abandon your "true communist party" or Bolshevik doctrine and try to observe the real life not what you think (in a mistified way) is good (as Chavez' government)

PD. BY THIS TIME YOU ARE NOT ANYMORE SUPPORTING CHAVEZ' REGIME UNLESS YOU STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REALITY AND IDEOLOGY.

[Sendo]

chavez was good overall, but his sun is setting. He should let go of his crazy ego before causes any more harm. (Tying reforms to repeals of pres. term limits? Really?)

[Hiero]

^^^ Um, how is Chavez in his dealings with the Boliburguesa any different from Mao and the "national bourgeoisie"?

This is 2008.

[Reclaimed Dasein]

From the outset, I'm going to ask you to read carefully what I'm writing since you have previously had problems understanding what I've written.


I never mean that not being hungry was not necessary but what I attack as false is the mystification of oppresion under the cover of "alleviating the suffering of humanity" which is nothing but vacumm phrase in first place because humanity as a homogenic entity doesn't exist, there are capitalist, workers, lumperproletarians, a real division of what you call "humanity" and not all of them are "suffering", you can ask the exploiters if they suffer whenever they steal surplus from a worker. I really don't think that how "progressive" is a regime is the real concern, if by this you understand any kind of organization that "helps people" but it use coercion against the individuals, then no regime in Latin America is Progressive (a regime is a set of people not a thing so the people that rule the organization doesn't look for the liberation of the human beings because it means that they are going to lose its provileges by doing this as Chavez).

Did I claim that every human being was suffering equally? No. I clearly did not. This "argument" only holds traction if I did. What I said is that any revolution should aim also at reducing human suffering. Paris Hilton losing a private jet is absolutely nothing compared to those starving to death in Africa. I'm not arguing for some sort of idiotic Pareto optimality.

Furthermore, your notion of "progressive" is lacking. I hate to ever sound like Derrida, but do you really think we should analyze the problems in essential binaries? Progressive is a more or less not an off or on. We should judge the amount of coercion against the amount of benefits gained. What would revolutionary violence be but a form of coercion? Are you arguing for no use of violence?

Furthermore, we should see how Chavez uses violence. Certainly his comments about the other parties are troubling, but it's important to note that
According to official sources, the percentage of people below the national poverty line has decreased significantly during the Chavez years, from 48.1% in 2002 to 12.3% in 2007.That seems like he's using his coercion in the name of the oppressed and not clearly in the name of the rich elites.


A TRUE COMMUNIST PARTY??? WTF!!!!!
If a true communist party is an organization that still uses the working class to legitimaze themselves and at the same time create a new hierarchical order I prefer to create a not true communist party. I think that you still believe in the Bolshevik doctrine of the party which is only the ideological mistification of STATE CAPITALISM WHICH IS STILL CAPITALISM.

Why don't you read what I wrote instead of what you wished I wrote? I didn't advocate for a "true" communist party. I said a truly (notice how that's an adjective) communist party. First, whether or not the Bolshevik "doctrine of the party" clearly exists is contentious. Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin had differing ideas about the function of the party. Secondly, I didn't advocate for strong party leadership. What I said is that a communist party of some variety would hold a stronger position. If you want to prove me wrong then you should argue against my position rather than creating a straw man.

My position is that a communist party coming to power would have a better position if more of the means of production are in the government's rather than private hands.


Let's give you a morality class. First morality implies to be rational, how can someone say that something is rational and thus moral? by analizing if the mattern of concern helps to liberation, liberty is the only moral for the revolution.
So morality is not abandoned to the reactionaries because they are not rational because they still think that oppression is good. Maybe you are going to tell me that you completely agree in this concern but by supporting a form of oppression as the Chavez' regime I really doubt that you think in a rational way, more than that I think your thought is mistified by burgeois morality as: "well we are not free but we eat ok so no problem". The problem of not being hungry will be eliminated when the direct producers take the control of their lifes and not being in control of a "true communist party".

As I thought, you've shown you have no idea what you're talking about. Rationality is a separate but related question to morality. Rationality is an incredibly problematic notion, and it's not at all clear that human beings are or should be rational in all cases. Rationality in regards to morality, at its basic level means giving justification for action. I am acting rationally only insofar as I can give a justification for my actions. Morality (roughly speaking) corresponds to doing what is right. These terms are not necessarily linked. If I jump on a hand grenade to save my comrades and I don't believe in an afterlife then it is not rationally justified to do so. Even so, it may be moral in the sense that it is required by the promises I have made to them and the revolution to do so. Engels is a good example. His family was rich. It was rational for him to hold on to his riches, but the moral call to fight for the working class drove him to forsake his goods for human progress.

I will admit there was some confusion in my original post. I still think that the distinction between necessary and sufficient should have made my position clear but I'll make it explicitly clear here. I said,
It's not only sufficient criteria that "more or less people" go to bed hungry, but it is a necessary one.There should be a "the" in the sentence so it reads. It's not the only sufficient criteria that "more or less people" go to bed hungry, but it is not a necessary one. In that case, we should have a consideration for the economic health and wellbeing of others, but that should not override all other concerns.

Also, when did I say
"well we are not free but we eat ok so no problem". The correct answer is "I didn't." Again, you need read what is actually written rather then what you wish to argue against. Moreover, I didn't yield unreserved support for Chavez. I said he was morally problematic which is completely undermines your claim that I'm mystified by bourgeois morality.

Furthermore, you're not really in any position to accuse anyone of irrationality. I'm providing evidence and arguments. You're spouting vague leftist jargon and platitudes. I would hope you would try to objectively weight the situation in Venezuela, but you seem unable to objectively read the sentences I'm writing on your computer screen.


About the Spanish republic you sholud know that it was organized in the form of councils, with direct control of each person, not ruled by the "true communist party" (though there was participation of Stalinist).
Finally and I strongly suggest to abandon your "true communist party" or Bolshevik doctrine and try to observe the real life not what you think (in a mistified way) is good (as Chavez' government)

PD. BY THIS TIME YOU ARE NOT ANYMORE SUPPORTING CHAVEZ' REGIME UNLESS YOU STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REALITY AND IDEOLOGY.
Actually the Spanish republic was organized in different ways in different regions. Maybe that was because different regions had different material conditions. In fact, it could be that there might exist a material condition where communist might make use of a party. Admittedly, there might be some times where party might undermine communism. The point is it requires care weighing rather then spouting malformed ideology.

This might be of interest to you.

http://www.thedesignmatrix.com/content/the-10-signs-of-intellectual-honesty/

[Glenn Beck]

chavez was good overall, but his sun is setting. He should let go of his crazy ego before causes any more harm. (Tying reforms to repeals of pres. term limits? Really?)


Venezuela is the only country in the world that I know of where a petition can lead to the immediate recall by public referendum of the head of state. That law was instituted when the Chavez government passed a new constitution and was immediately used against him, though he ended up re-elected by a wide margin. I think having term limits in addition to that system is both redundant and anti-democratic.

I do agree though that Chavez should look into retiring at least from the presidency within the next 2 or 3 years. No matter how good of a leader he is (my own opinion of him is rather high, overall, but I don't think he will lead the country to socialism, horse and water is what I say) if he stays it will stunt the movement and lead to an ever greater threat of the revolutionary movement devolving into mere paternalism. And watching some of his more recent speeches the man himself seems tired and fed up. His speech a couple of months ago when he denounced the US meddling in Bolivia and expelled the US ambassador with a flurry of obscenities comes to mind, maybe he was just having a bad day but he looked totally exhausted.

[KurtFF8]

I think having term limits in addition to that system is both redundant and anti-democratic.

Would you feel that way while analyzing the role of US Senators and Congresspeople?

[Herman]

Would you feel that way while analyzing the role of US Senators and Congresspeople?

Restricting how many times you can choose an elected official is anti-democratic. Luckily, most European countries have ignored your silly comment.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Sure, term-limits are anti-democratic, but that's not really the main question when looking at Venezuela, is it?

[KurtFF8]

Restricting how many times you can choose an elected official is anti-democratic. Luckily, most European countries have ignored your silly comment.

What do is your point about European countries?

And do you really think that the lack of term limits has helped "democracy" in the US? You have the same people in congress for decades and make it much harder for people to challenge the incumbents (incumbency advantage is quite ridiculous), which leads to quite a conservative government (in the sense of wanting to preserve itself.

It would also be "anti-democratic" to overturn proposition 8 in California (the prop was to ban gay marriage), but wouldn't you support overturning that?

[cyu]

You have the same people in congress for decades and make it much harder for people to challenge the incumbents (incumbency advantage is quite ridiculous), which leads to quite a conservative government (in the sense of wanting to preserve itself.

Yes. If a person's ideas were good enough, he wouldn't need to actually hold office - other people would simply adopt his ideas when they get into office. The only thing getting into office is good for, is for wielding the truncheon.

[KurtFF8]

I agree to some extent. But also, if a revolution is dependent on one person being in power, then there's a problem with the nature of that revolution: it doesn't quite seem like a mass movement at that point.

Granted I do understand the argument that if the people approve of how a specific leader is doing that they should be able to have that same leader continue their work. But practical experience shows that this doesn't work out well in many cases, although you do have to take it case by case.

[Enragé]

this gives me the creeps

[cyu]

if a revolution is dependent on one person being in power, then there's a problem with the nature of that revolution: it doesn't quite seem like a mass movement at that point.


Right - even if that one person for some reason had some ungodly genius in how to run a country, he should still try to establish a system or communicate ideas that can continue on without him.

What is the point of working your whole life trying to change the world for the better only to have it completely fall apart after you die?