Results 21 to 40 of 54
Before Lenin it was theoretical postulate. Lenin implemented the postulate into reality. If Chavez really established proletariat dictatorship in Venezuela we would not have this discussion. It proves one more time you cannot sit between two chairs.
Another way of saying this is that "one cannot serve two masters". This is the mistake those that foolishly advocate Social Democracy make every single time and, in revolutionary situations, often ends up getting people who are truly working class and good killed by the reactionaries. I fear that we are about to see this soon in Venezuela if Maduro and Co. can't figure out how to handle this development appropriately.
I am afraid that Maduro has no idea how to handle this development.
What the fuck Maduro? Strike at the Helm! In the last months of his life, Hugo Chavez basically called for a proletarian cultural revolution(even quoted Mao!), an intensification of the class struggle and socialist construction from below. Even told Maduro he trusted him with his life to help carry this out(okay so he died a couple months later but still). Where's the criticism-self-criticism secessions among PSUV cadre? Where's the workers storming the party headquarters and rooting out the capitalist roaders and bolibourgeoisia within the bureaucracy and the PSUV? Where's the workers smashing the counterrevolutionary guarimberos, lumpenproletarian paramilitaries and their comprador-bourgeoisie backers? Setting up communes and seizing the means of production?
Problem was Chavismo depended too much on Chavez's charisma and working within the bourgeois-democratic state structure(which under modern capitalism can only be a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie), and not enough on the workers and poor peasantry, the majority who really should be running things and were actually the ones on the ground implementing the positive things. Once hewas assassinateddied of cancer, that was some big shoes that were hard to fill.
The PSUV and the Bolivarian Revolution didn't have a clear proletarian character and was not fully anti-imperialist by default. Venezuela is still a semi-colony, being heavily dependent on oil sales to the US. To an extent, that's beyond anyone's control, bar a violent revolution or great advancement in productive forces.
There was a middle "national" bourgeosie and a bureaucratic bourgeoisie heavily involved who supported it for purely patriotic, perhaps for some individual ideological reasons(both derogatorily called the "bolibourgeoisia"
That speech Hugo Chavez gave basically calling for a cultural revolution is probably what scared the shit out of the bourgeoisie, both in Venezuela and the US. This had the US condemning every single thing, real or imagined that happened in Venezuela(while the Mexican and Honduran states continued to pile up bodies). Sad thing is more people probably died from violent crime and poverty, and likely even more will die from poverty and violent crime under MUD, than if Chavez actually helped launch a cultural revolution and civil war leading to a dictatorship of the proletariat and the socialist path. But that's all the anonymous numbers under capitalism, that for some reason don't count.Sadly this overestimates a lot of people's political literacy or grasp at current events, or assumes this support translates into votes at the ballot box. A lot of supporters of PSUV simply did not vote out of frustration. I've read various news articles of people just checking off the MUD candidates on the ballot without looking at the actual candidates, just due to their displeasure with the PSUV under Maduro.Originally Posted by Tim Cornelis
In fact, bourgeois elections don't necessarily reflect the will of the majority, just the majority of votes cast. It rarely does, in fact. In this election, after factoring in about 74% turnout, 41.684 percent of eligible voters cast their vote for MUD vs. 30.34% PSUV. For all we know those that didn't bother to vote or cast an invalid ballot could've overwhelmingly supported/preferred either the PSUV, MUD or any other party, but didn't feel the need or desire to express it at the ballot box for whatever reason. Such is the flaw in bourgeois "democracy".
Generally higher turnout=more leftist candidates, lower turnout=more rightist but consistent electorate. But not always, and while in this Venezuelan election turnout was down from the presidential election, it was still pretty high historically and up from previous parliamentary elections. In fact, the PSUV actually got 171,525 more votes this election than in 2010(5,622,844 vs. 5,451,422), but the opposition really made serious gains, with 2,391,757 more votes(7,726,099 vs. 5,334,309).
Damn, holding the country hostage by hoarding and currency speculation really payed off for the comprador-bourgeoisie. Like John Galt's dream brought to life. I wonder if the shortages will suddenly end, or if it will continue till Maduro is overthrown/steps down under pressure? What if the opposition fails to deliver economically, or the shortages resolve but no one can afford shit anyway? With a strong president yet a supermajority in parliament completely on the opposite spectrum, I imagine there's going to be a lot of deadlock in the next few years. I wonder what will happen?
Last edited by John Nada; 11th December 2015 at 00:58. Reason: spelling, corrected election vote#
Are you seriously suggesting Chavez was assassinated?
A jokeThough being a leftist leader in the western hemisphere tends to greatly reduce one's life expectancy, except for
.
It appears to be natural causes, though there are poisons that cause cancer. Like that Russian dissident Alexander Litvinenko who got polonium poisoning, and later it was suspected that Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat was poisoned with polonium too. It decays rather quickly, but the damage last much longer. And there's other similar ones too that are hard to detect. It's entirely possible, but no proof so that's just useless conspiracy theories. I'd hate going into conspiracy mode, and all available info point to Chavez's death being natural causes.
TL;DR I'm fucking joking!
I view Chavismo as an extension of Marxist-Leninist vanguardism and republicanism during Hugo Chavez in office (adding a little populism on top for good taste). But a revolutionary organization is still a revolutionary organization. I see America putting pressure resulting in the PSUV degrading to democratic socialism, probably Scandinavian model.
Best case scenario is Chavismo reforms and the party is able to prevail once again. That is very unrealistic since the greatest weapon is Chavez's charisma itself.
Saying Chavism is dead is as naive as Chavez saying the opposition was dead when it got like 1/3 of the vote. Elections are fickle mistresses.
I think Latin American social democrats do condemn capitalism and support socialism, but are always vague in what they mean by these terms.
It doesn't automatically lead to higher living standards, but it does lead to a more stable economy. For one thing, short an actual global revolution, the working class will rely on trade to get goods from other areas. Things like dutch disease can make the purchasing power of workers too dependent on fluctuating oil prices, as we've seen Venezuela unable to pay for sufficient imports with oil prices at $50 or less.
Of course, there are other factors too, nobody is saying diversification alone will solve the problems, however it doesn't hurt.
Petro-populism is a good term
Also a good term ...
I agree with both of these points - Chavez and Maduro talked a lot about this, but they never really got on it. I would remember sentimental fluff stories of these lovely little Venezuelan Potemkin Coops they would set up where, say, indigenous women farmers using a Belorussian tractor to crow maize and chocolate on land that had been taken from some aristocrat or British rancher. It was nice and lovely, and the people would smile and talk about how great the future looked. 5 years later and Venezuela is still importing corn and coffee, and I'm not exactly sure what happened to those lovely women or their little coop, of it they had just built that one and spent the rest of the money on some Sukhoi fighter bombers or laptops for 5 year olds.
Well, had they diversified their economy, they would not have been as damaged by the Saudi effort to swamp the oil market.
Socialist Party of Outer Space
Well a long-term strategy to create a more stable economy over time would have been better for EVERYBODY involved rather than the course they pursued where they wanted to give everyone everything all at once while still running a capitalist economy, thus having the economy tank along with the oil prices. It's sad because, considering all its flaws, it was still a government which actually had a desire to help the people, whereas now they will get a government who will hand all that oil over to a few barons, and it will be squandered making a few people rich instead.
What you propose, though, is that PSUV should have leaned into the will of capital, go with its logic, and rule according to capitalist logic. That makes sense perhaps when you rule a bourgeois state, as they did, but as revolutionary socialists.... less so. Because a "more stable economy" means facilitating a healthier rate of capital accumulation. This is incidentally what Bolivia did under socialist comrade Morales, and have ended up relaxing regulations for investment preconditions for foreign capital, and liberalised to an extent. So basically, neo-liberalism.
pew pew pew
What Chavez did wrong (even after counter-revolution coup of 2002) he preserve old government system. He got stack between Social-Democracy and Communism. That what I was referring to. And now we will see how counter-revolution wave will destroy everything PSUV government created.
The notion Chavez 'got stuck' is so utterly ridiculous. Chavez was never a revolutionary.
That's being too pure. Chavez was a man forced into a more radical position precisely because of the willingness of the Venezuelan working people to go farther than the boundaries he established with his 1999 Constitution. In that sense, he was a revolutionary. If I could say that Chavez had a problem, it was that he wasn't truly willing to create the legal and economic foundations of Socialism.
I think we have different understanding of a meaning "revolutionary". For some to come to this forum is ULTRAREVOLUTIONARY. I do not think Chavez, if he could be still alive, would come to this forum. He would not have time for it.
Actually, what do you think about Salvador Aliende? Was he a revolutionary?
I would've much preferred a true socialist state just like everyone else on this forum but if you are not willing to do that then you have to govern from reality otherwise you will crash and hand the keys over to someone a lot more dangerous.
However, I disagree with the idea that you must fully commit to neo-liberalism when ruling a bourgeois state in order to provide a socially and economically just society for its people. I do not see the situation as so black and white. Neo-liberalism is already starting to be recognised as a failure for the west both socially and economically within the capitalist structure, and it is only a matter of time before more sustainable, reformist ideas come to the fore. Although I agree with you that the unjust nature of capitalism will still exist, I believe the conditions will get better for the majority of people in society, and that has to count for something. Sitting around expecting some kind of revolution to happen when the support for it simply isn't there is just ludicrous, first you have to convince people that the basis of these ideas have value, and surely reformism is the way to do that?
Chavez never to my knowledge actually had a real plan to "build communism". Despite being the most radical of the "pink tide" leaders, he (like the rest) used the imagery and political capital of Guevarism and other cold-war Latin American communist movements, made it amenable to a social democratic system, and sought electoral power.
This is true, but this appears to be a fundamental dilemma for 3rd world reformist socialists. Their societies lack the productive power to sustain relative autarky and they lack major economic and political backers (like the USSR of old), so to ensure not just development but economic sustainability they need access to foreign capital.Originally Posted by Tim Cornelis
The fact that abolition of private property is "purist" is really telling. I mean fuck, in 1945 Clement Attlee was calling for abolition of classes; what a revolutionary he was.Originally Posted by Hugo Chavez
They're not vague. If they even mention capitalism, they mean one specific kind of capitalism, to be abolished in favour of some other kind of capitalism. But it's not about the sounds people use, but what they mean. Latin American "socialists" of the Altamirano generation opposed capitalism, perhaps. They opposed it ineffectively, but when you read their work there is still the understanding that commodity production and private ownership is to be replaced by planning and production for need. Not so with modern Latin-American sots-dems or bourgeois-nationalist figures like Chavez and Morales.
I think you're conflating several very distinct situations. Obviously goods circulate on a global scale today. Until the entire world is socialist, trade between the revolutionary area and the capitalist remnant is necessary (which is part of the reason why the revolutionary area can't be socialist in isolation). But we're not talking about that. Venezuela is not a workers' state. Venezuela is a bourgeois state, which had a bourgeois-nationalist government until a few days ago. When "Venezuela" has a favourable trade balance, this means that the Venezuelan bourgeoisie are doing well. It doesn't necessarily mean that the workers in Venezuela are doing well.Originally Posted by Sinister Cultural Marxist
It doesn't hurt but we're not a consulting company, telling the bourgeoisie how to run capitalism is not something we should do.Originally Posted by Sinister Cultural Marxist
The notion that one can be "stuck" between social-democracy and communism is bizarre. A socialist revolution means the destruction of the bourgeois state apparatus. Did that happen in Venezuela? No.Originally Posted by Burzhuin
So? "In that sense", Peron was a revolutionary, as were Vargas, Allende, Batista, anyone else? A lot of people. None of which led the working class in the overthrow of the bourgeois state.Originally Posted by VukBZ2005
No society has the productive power to sustain autarky; all autarky does is bring poverty and immiseration. And yes, bourgeois regimes can't bring their countries out of neo-colonial bondage and economic backwardness. This is more to do with the nature of the "national" bourgeoisie of such states and the development of the global productive forces than difficulty in accessing capital. The pipe dream of a bourgeois or "democratic" revolution in the imperialist periphery has been shown to be wrong time and again.Originally Posted by Sinister Cultural Marxist
What I'm saying is that they don't really articulate the specifics of what they mean by capitalism and by socialism. You are right that they don't define it in terms of commodity production and private property, but they don't really define it another way, either. I think this is so they can have their cake and eat it too - they can rhetorically use people's outrage at capitalism, while not actually building a real class conscious movement.
I don't disagree that Venezuela isn't a worker's state by any reasonable definition. However, it's also true that the kinds of economic crises created by over-dependence on one commodity may to impact working class communities more acutely than the bourgeoisie.
I agree about autarky, that's certainly not the goal. However, it's also true that more productive economies are less dependent on the global economy for access to critical resources, especially those which can be utilized for development, or those which are required for basic sustenance. The less goods which can be produced at home, the less you are dependent on trade with the capitalist world, and the less you need foreign currency to sustain a basic standard of living and development.
Neo-liberalism is not a political choice. It doesn't matter whether someone thinks it's good or bad idea, whether it's preferable or not, it is imposed by structural forces known as globalisation. In the 1960s, new methods of transportation were developed and applied, that allowed for larger cargo to be shipped by boat and airplane. This enhanced the mobility of capital, as it could now move around the globe in search of more favourable and profitable conditions for production. It enhanced the bargaining power of capital. If labour demands more wages, more security, or whatever else, big capital can simply get up and leave to produce in South East Asia and ship the commodities back to Europe for cheaper. Neo-liberalism is nothing more than the political accommodation of the enhanced bargaining power of capital. And unless you remove the (material) basis for the enhanced bargaining power of capital (somehow destroy the technology and knowledge for large cargo transportation I suppose), neo-liberalism is here to stay.
It is recognised as a failure is it? By whom? Some isolated born again Keynesian populists, a relatively large segment of the population with no political power, I suppose, yes. But what has been done to undo it? Impose austerity, lower government spending, liberalise, privatise, deregulate, those things were used as measured to fight the economic crises. Hardly a recognition of neo-liberalism as a failure by the important people.
Reformism isn't the same as fighting for reforms.
pew pew pew
