Results 1 to 10 of 10
Chavez...
A comrade is arguing that Chavez holding a majority in office, and whatnot, is a part of a revolutionary transitional programme, in which the bourgeoisie still are the ruling class, but holding this governmental position is a step toward the proletarian masses taking control.
That capitalists control the state "to varying extents".
I mean, I've always veiwed Chavez as a tool of capital.
As well, his point seems to stem into taht staet control by the bourgeoisie, can vary. From a little bourgeois cotnrol to total bourgeois control. That sort of opinion. That the Burgeoisie were less in control in Nazi Germany than in the USA, that Nazi Germany wassubject to petty-bourgeois military dictatorship, and ergo, power was shared with the petty-bourgeois.
Anyone wanna chip in here?
Last edited by Brosip Tito; 15th May 2012 at 18:04.
He needs to openly advocate for the working class to take control of their workplaces.Chavez does a lot of progressive actions yet Venezuela might have turned socialist if Chavez laid off the bureaucracy and pushed the working class.Instead he took a petite-bourgeois route and has since than been mired in this electoral struggle with the conservatives.
I still have some hope for Venezuela but some serious change needs to happen.
THE REV-LEFT STUDY GUIDE PROJECT
Contribute today and help facilitate the spread of revolutionary knowledge.
Hugo Chávez, 300% b.s.
Chávez is to revolution what Milli Vanilli are to music: 300% b.s. In the 1990's, Grantist leader Alan Woods "discovered" that the Venezuelan bourgeoisie "no longer controlled" the Venezuelan state machine, i.e., the ruling class had been displaced, a claim that is totally untrue and complete and utter nonsense.
In fact, under great leader Chávez, workers who went on strike or went in the direction of seeking to control their own workplace, were brutally repressed by the Venezuelan Guardia Nacional (commander in chief, Hugo Chávez), more than once. The same month in the 1990's that the Grantist charlatan Woods proclaimed that Chávez "totally" identified with the Venezuelan masses, the Guardia Nacional violently broke a strike by workers at SIDOR, the giant steel mill on the Orinoco River.
The fact that the bourgeoisie has continued to extract surplus value from the labor of Venezuelan workers, proves that the Venezuelan state machine still responds to the needs of the bourgeoisie. The entire foolish, politically-illiterate infatuation with Chávez simply constitutes a denial of what Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky and Che clearly held, that the workers cannot lay hold of the bourgeois state and wield it to their own advantage; bourgeois rule must be smashed. And that, sure as hell, has never happened in the chavista workers' paradise.
Last edited by eyeheartlenin; 15th May 2012 at 18:37.
[FONT="Arial"]1991: Chomsky, on sanctions and Iraq, in 1991 http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199102--02.htm
"I think the first step is to bail out the banks." Chomsky, on the US economic crisis
For workers' self-emancipation
Education Organization Emancipation
[/FONT]
...and a new ruling class based on the avant garde party be instituted so the working class can be brutally repressed in the name of ideological purity.
been there, done that...
I'd be interested in your alternative to the "avant garde" party.
To wait until the toiling classes bring about a revolution on an international scale means that everybody should stand stock-still in expectation. That is nonsense.
V.I. Lenin, May 14, 1918.
... [T]he relations of production must necessarily conform with the character of the productive forces ...
I.V. Stalin, Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R., 1951.
Chavez is just another guy that uses socialist rhetoric to gain support. the condition of the working class under Chavez has probably gotten a bit better since he took office, and no doubt he's a popular guy. but he is not a socialist in any way.
"I'm anti-Republican and Democratic / if they self destruct that's anti-climactic"
Chavez like any south american politician, be it Lula or Morales, is a populist demagogue using anti-american imperialism discourse as a common enemy to stay in power, while sell oil to USA behind the curtain.
I just watched The Revolution Will Not Be Televised..Is there anybody kind enough to make a summarize of what happened in Venuzuela since the documentary and now?
[FONT=Comic Sans MS]We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit -Aristotle[/FONT]
The proletariat seizing control of the means of production as opposed to believing that some day, some how, some bourgeois politician in a red shirt will so graciously rain down happy time Socialism upon them. More or less.
Come little children, I'll take thee away, into a land of enchantment, come little children, the times come to play, here in my garden of magic.
"I'm tired of this "isn't humanity neat," bullshit. We're a virus with shoes."-Bill Hicks.
I feel the Bern and I need penicillin
I'm no fan of Chavez (see his friends across the globe) but he can't retain popularity if he were to openly state his motives for proletarian power. The rural petite bourgeousie, in Venezuela's case, are necessary for him to retain power. There isn't another way out.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2
[FONT="Courier New"] “We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Revolution and of the new order of life. ”
― Felix Dzerzhinsky [/FONT]
لا شيء يمكن وقف محاكم التفتيش للثورة
