Maduro Loses Election

[Burzhuin]

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.

We are talking about the same as major mistake made by Chavez.

About "stuck". Do you believe that somebody was born communist, social-democrat, liberal, etc? I do not think so. I think people political believes are evolving, sometimes from right to left, sometimes in opposite direction. I do not think you would argue that Fidel Castro WAS NOT born with Communist Manifest in his hands.

[Emmett Till]

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?

Of course not. He was a reformist, with his "peaceful road to socialism." He had bourgeois politicians in his coalition government, and tried to clamp down whenever workers took his claims of socialism too seriously. Especially on the copper miners, key to the Chilean economy, whose strikes he broke, denouncing them as "counterrevolutionary" and letting the Communist Party ministers denounce them as "trotskyites." Which some of them were, the "Trotskyist revolutionary organization" of the late Mario Munoz played a leading role in the copper mine strikes.

And, of course, he appointed one Augusto Pinochet to be the head of the Chilean army. Now there was a revolutionary act!

[Burzhuin]

Of course not. He was a reformist, with his "peaceful road to socialism." He had bourgeois politicians in his coalition government, and tried to clamp down whenever workers took his claims of socialism too seriously. Especially on the copper miners, key to the Chilean economy, whose strikes he broke, denouncing them as "counterrevolutionary" and letting the Communist Party ministers denounce them as "trotskyites." Which some of them were, the "Trotskyist revolutionary organization" of the late Mario Munoz played a leading role in the copper mine strikes.

And, of course, he appointed one Augusto Pinochet to be the head of the Chilean army. Now there was a revolutionary act!

Of course he had bourgeois politicians in his government. Since he won as a candidate from People Unity. The coalition contained beside Socialist and Communist parties some of left-center liberal parties.

Can you answer simple question: If Aliende was such antirevolutionary what was the point of the military Coup September 11, 1973?

[R.Rubinelli]

Of course he had bourgeois politicians in his government. Since he won as a candidate from People Unity. The coalition contained beside Socialist and Communist parties some of left-center liberal parties.

Can you answer simple question: If Aliende was such antirevolutionary what was the point of the military Coup September 11, 1973?

It's not quite that simple. The UP government was a popular front government. Within that government there were left wing forces (usually in the Allende's Socialist Party) and right wing (definitely represented by the official Communist Party). The Radicals (a bourgeois formation) were essentially bit players in the UP coalition.

Allende believed, and UP was organized, in the principle that the "national bourgeoisie" and the "smaller bourgeoisie" could be separated from the "imperial" and "monopolistic" bourgeoisie, and "won over" to socialism, if socialism was established within the framework of the constitution and by democratic processes.

He, and the UP, were wrong, as any analysis of the actions of the Chilean bourgeoisie "national" and "international" will show. The economy, still being under the control of capital, international and national, tanked, after an initial upsurge during recovery from the 1969-70 recession. As the economy tanked, workers took actions on their owns to prevent lockouts, shutdowns, and to oppose the actual "general strike" by the bourgeoisie. The cordones, workers councils, successfully defeated the lockout of the bourgeoisie-- but through "extra-democratic" "extra-constitutional" means, as is always the case in revolutionary struggle.

This was unacceptable to Allende, and in particular the Communists, who denounced the cordones as "ultra-left" and "terrorist," and proceeded to work doggedly against the expansion of the class power that the cordones represented. The bourgeoisie, emboldened , began overt appeals to the military to intervene and disperse the socialists.

Allende, thinking he could count on Pinochet's "commitment" to the constitution made him head of the army and chief of staff. He was wrong.
Clearly.

That Allende has weakened the workers class organization was all the signal the bourgeoisie needed to dispose of the entire government and not just weaken, but crush the remnants of proletarian revolution. Hence Sept 11, 1973.

"Those who make revolutions half-way, merely dig their own graves."-- Saint-Just

[Emmett Till]

Of course he had bourgeois politicians in his government. Since he won as a candidate from People Unity. The coalition contained beside Socialist and Communist parties some of left-center liberal parties.

Can you answer simple question: If Aliende was such antirevolutionary what was the point of the military Coup September 11, 1973?

Because he was a social democrat who advocated bourgeois democracy.

Why the coup? Well, why did so many German capitalists support Hitler's seizure of power against a truly thoroughly right wing and utterly capitalist government? Actually I'll tell you why, because in Germany, unlike Chile, the communist Party was rapidly gaining strength during the Great Depression, and capitalists feared that if Hitler did not come to power, Thaelmann would.

In Chile? Because although Allende was a reformist not a revolutionary, to carry out the utter crushing of the Chilean workers movement that his appointee Pinochet carried out was not possible under Allende.

The stuff you have written about many German workers supporting Hitler after he took power is true but misses the point. Hitler, don't you know, was a fascist. Anybody who didn't support Hitler after he came to power was in for a world of hurt. The number of *Aryan Germans* killed by Hitler for opposition, and especially for communism, is at least in the hundreds of thousands, some say over the million mark. Not everybody is brave.

[Burzhuin]

Yes, many of my comrades communists were imprisoned, many of whom like Ernst Thälmann were killed. I know from stories of my grandfather's brother, who survived in German concentration camps. Or better to say extermination camps. Actually I studied NSDAP history. You would be surprised but workers majority in NSDAP existed BEFORE Hitler was sworn as German kanzler. But the bravery of those German workers who fought Nazi government can be only praised and should be example to ANY TRUE COMMUNIST.

But I drifted away from the topic. My apologies. According to my knowledge Aliende's government drifted towards more social reforms than local reactionary opposition could tolerate. Besides Cuba's example was too fresh and too painful for American imperialists and Chilean Capitalists.

[Die Neue Zeit]

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 he was 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

The Bolivarian Revolution needed to become a Third World Caesarean Socialist revolution.

1) I agree that both the "capitalist roaders" and the Boliburguesia need to be cast aside. How? Consider People's War, Focoism, Breakthrough Military Coups, and other means.

2) However, given the majority demographics, the leading class should be the petit-Bolibourgeoisie or pequena Boliburguesia (including the "poor peasantry" that are the rural petit-bourgeoisie), not the working-class demographic minority. The majority of Venezuela's adult population doesn't have a working-class background or profile.

3) The Venezuelan presidency as an institution was and is not politically strong enough. It does not have all of these, and unfortunately they were not brought up during the 2007 referendum:

a) Assuming weak or semi-strong veto power, and not strong veto power, from Peru’s model, an exclusively executive ability to deal with legislature-defeated bills and vetoed bills, like those dealing with questions on war and peace, by holding referenda;
b) From the models of Brazil and Chile, an exclusive legislative initiative (reserved for the executive) in policy areas beyond just budget law and international trade affairs;
c) From Ecuador’s model, the ability to force legislatures to explicitly vote down, within a certain number of days (30 in Ecuador), bills submitted by the executive that have also been declared “urgent” (otherwise that bill automatically becomes law);
d) For the purposes of direct monetary and fiscal intervention, including the specific case of avoiding a US-style budget crisis initiated by a relatively stubborn legislature (a la Gingrich), from Colombia’s model, the ability to declare “economic emergency”; and
e) From the FDR era, but more extensive, the enforcement of political accountability in those courts dealing specifically with constitutional affairs (as opposed to typical criminal and civil cases) by means of of arbitrary "judiciary reorganization" and "court packing."

4) Also, where's the managed multi-party system?

More: People's Histories, Blocs, and "Managed Democracy" Reconsidered

[piet11111]

Ceasarian revolution ?

Why have a strong man dictator instead of a proletarian revolution ?

[VukBZ2005]

However, given the majority demographics, the leading class should be the petit-Bolibourgeoisie or pequena Boliburguesia (including the "poor peasantry" that are the rural petit-bourgeoisie), not the working-class demographic minority. The majority of Venezuela's adult population doesn't have a working-class background or profile.

The majority of Venezuelans aren't tied to the land. Hell, the urban percentage of population is 90%. Rather, the demographic problem Venezuela has in revolutionary terms is the plurality of people who are not in the formal economy at all. If we can apply class to that, it would have to be "Lumpen-proletarian".

[John Nada]

The Bolivarian Revolution needed to become a Third World Caesarean Socialist revolution.

Most seem to think the "Caesarean" part means have a Julius Caesar-like character launch a coup and impose reforms in the third-world as a serious revolutionary strategy. Does "Caesarean" mean "like Caesar" or a caesarean section to deliver a baby? As in an emergency way to deliver revolution earlier than expected(before having a sovereign country with developed capitalism, a proletarian majority and no the vestiges of feudalism or pre-capitalism), resulting in a revolutionary democratic-dictatorship of the proletariat and other oppressed classes which will move on to DotP asap? Did anyone else ever ask this? Looked like only one or two other users viewed as a c-section rather a bourgeois strongperson.

1) I agree that both the "capitalist roaders" and the Boliburguesia need to be cast aside. How? Consider People's War, Focoism, Breakthrough Military Coups, and other means.

No insurrection? That's probably the most popular strategy outside of the electoral path. Not always the best one, but generally the image that comes to mind.

2) However, given the majority demographics, the leading class should be the petit-Bolibourgeoisie or pequena Boliburguesia (including the "poor peasantry" that are the rural petit-bourgeoisie), not the working-class demographic minority. The majority of Venezuela's adult population doesn't have a working-class background or profile.

How can the proletariat be a minority? Agriculture only employs less than 10%, though a few big landowners disproportionally own the vast majority of land. Most of them are probably rural proletarians, even if the semi-feudal landowners remain. Unemployment's 7.9% and 21.8% work in industry. Wealth's got the typical Latin American distribution.

If anything, Venezuela has a proletarian majority, or at least plurality with a significant semi-proletariat, that can be the leading and main force of a revolution. Maybe even higher percentage than the US. The national bourgeoisie and petit-bourgeoisie are demographic minority prone to supporting capitalism anyway and basically keep things the same. It makes no sense for other classes to lead something they can't and won't do without the leadership of the proletariat.

I suspect what's called the "bolibourgeoisia" is actually comprised of the bureaucratic bourgeoisie, pro-government comprador-bourgeoisie, pro-governenment landowners and the middle national bourgeoisie. The middle national-bourgeoisie(who'd be better viewed as national petit-bourgeoisie less it have images of local robber barons) are like the less secure local businesses or the intelligentsia such as in the entertainment industry. Bureaucratic bourgeoisie would be capitalists tied to state-industry, the ones who would support a Juan Peron-type that's common in Latin America. The comprador-bourgeoisie are the big capitalist such as in finance and imperialist/subimperialist(including BRICS) owned/subcontracted businesses.

3) The Venezuelan presidency as an institution was and is not politically strong enough. It does not have all of these, and unfortunately they were not brought up during the 2007 referendum:

a) Assuming weak or semi-strong veto power, and not strong veto power, from Peru's model, an exclusively executive ability to deal with legislature-defeated bills and vetoed bills, like those dealing with questions on war and peace, by holding referenda;
b) From the models of Brazil and Chile, an exclusive legislative initiative (reserved for the executive) in policy areas beyond just budget law and international trade affairs;
c) From Ecuador's model, the ability to force legislatures to explicitly vote down, within a certain number of days (30 in Ecuador), bills submitted by the executive that have also been declared "urgent"; (otherwise that bill automatically becomes law);
d) For the purposes of direct monetary and fiscal intervention, including the specific case of avoiding a US-style budget crisis initiated by a relatively stubborn legislature (a la Gingrich), from Colombia's model, the ability to declare "economic emergency";; and
e) From the FDR era, but more extensive, the enforcement of political accountability in those courts dealing specifically with constitutional affairs (as opposed to typical criminal and civil cases) by means of of arbitrary "judiciary reorganization" and "court packing."

f) Jam through a law for workers' councils http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/11773 and establish workers' power. Now here's some motorcyclists which Die Neue Zeit is fond of. http://www.telesurtv.net/english/new...1216-0024.html

Venezuela's a bureaucratic capitalist semi-colony(not neo-colony), capitalism developed under imperialism. This is the base, even if Chavez or Maduro honestly wants socialism and opposes imperialism(I'd like to think more Allende and less Peron, maybe wishful thinking).

In semi-colonies, the bureaucratic, comprador, landowning and national strata of the bourgeoisie fight, claim to oppose corruption, defend democracy, restore order, protect sovereignty or enact a bunch of populists measures. It swings from state-based populism for development that really serves the bureaucratic bourgeoisie, then neoliberalism justified by anti-corruption and "democracy" when the comprador-bourgeoisie wants to reign in inflation. Tailing any side of the bourgeoisie will lead to nowhere. A merry-go-round common in the 3rd-world, Latin America in particular. Almost exactly like Peruvian Marxist Mariategui described:https://www.marxists.org/archive/mar...ks/1929-ai.htm

[Die Neue Zeit]

Most seem to think the "Caesarean" part means have a Julius Caesar-like character launch a coup and impose reforms in the third-world as a serious revolutionary strategy. Does "Caesarean" mean "like Caesar" or a caesarean section to deliver a baby?

Definitely one, and perhaps both. Michael Parenti's biographical account of Julius Caesar dared to contradict the standard historians' view of him. Antonio Gramsci wrote, mistakenly, of "progressive Caesarism" and "reactionary Caesarism," when in fact there is only ever-progressive, Julian Caesarism and ever-reactionary Bonapartism.

A breakthrough military coup (a specific form of coup that isn't a guardian coup or other usual forms of coups) is only one avenue to power. Others include People's War (Mao) and Focoism (Che).

As in an emergency way to deliver revolution earlier than expected(before having a sovereign country with developed capitalism, a proletarian majority and no the vestiges of feudalism or pre-capitalism), resulting in a revolutionary democratic-dictatorship of the proletariat and other oppressed classes which will move on to DotP asap?

More or less, but in my framework the proletarian demographic minority is *not* the ruling class. Nonetheless, a Third World Caesarean Socialism (TWCS) would grant class independence for the working class, organizationally speaking.

Did anyone else ever ask this? Looked like only one or two other users viewed as a c-section rather a bourgeois strongperson.

My framework for revolutionary strategy in the Third World suggests that proletarian demographic minorities should grow thick skin towards constitutionally uber-strong executive power that makes historical caudillos look like liberal democrats (hence why I combined those comparative Latin American executive powers specifically).

Such power, based on my links above, is by no means "bourgeois strongmanism," which precludes radical democratic components. If the new Julius Caesar repeating people's history is progressive but strong enough, his leadership should incorporate both the formal presidentialism of Josip Broz Tito and the long tenure of Todor Zhivkov.

No insurrection? That's probably the most popular strategy outside of the electoral path.

Isn't Focoism a form of insurrection?

How can the proletariat be a minority?

In the countryside, the small tenant farmers and sharecroppers outnumber proper farm workers. In the cities, there are way too many shopkeepers that one could lose count.

The national bourgeoisie and petit-bourgeoisie are demographic minority prone to supporting capitalism anyway and basically keep things the same. It makes no sense for other classes to lead something they can't and won't do without the leadership of the proletariat.

The "national" bourgeoisie are prone to supporting capitalism. They must be swept aside. Mao's Bloc of Four Classes is downright wrong.

Meanwhile, the "national" petit-bourgeoisie, in fact, tend to support socialistic ideas earlier than the working class. Just look at Occupy, or the Cuban revolution (the strikes came after Focoist successes), or the Russian forerunners of the left-SRs - who predated the Russian Marxists.

I suspect what's called the "bolibourgeoisia" is actually comprised of the bureaucratic bourgeoisie, pro-government comprador-bourgeoisie, pro-governenment landowners and the middle national bourgeoisie. The middle national-bourgeoisie(who'd be better viewed as national petit-bourgeoisie less it have images of local robber barons) are like the less secure local businesses or the intelligentsia such as in the entertainment industry. Bureaucratic bourgeoisie would be capitalists tied to state-industry, the ones who would support a Juan Peron-type that's common in Latin America. The comprador-bourgeoisie are the big capitalist such as in finance and imperialist/subimperialist(including BRICS) owned/subcontracted businesses.

But I'm not talking about the "national" bourgeoisie. On TWCS issues I stress only the "national" petit-bourgeoisie. I used the term pequena Boliburguesia to describe the socioeconomic patriots among Venezuela's small tenant farmers, sharecroppers, shopkeepers, etc.

Jam through a law for workers' councils http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/11773 and establish workers' power.

That's premature under TWCS.

Now here's some motorcyclists which Die Neue Zeit is fond of. http://www.telesurtv.net/english/new...1216-0024.html

You remember my chat discussion all too well and answered your own question from back then!

This, in fact, is a perfect illustration of the pequena Boliburguesia organizing politically, a more leftist counterpart to Russia's Night Wolves.

Recall what I also said back then: I picked biker gangs as a generic petit-bourgeois example, because the average worker doesn't have a not-so-multipurpose motorbike, much less hang out with a biker gang.

[VukBZ2005]

In the countryside, the small tenant farmers and sharecroppers outnumber proper farm workers. In the cities, there are way too many shopkeepers that one could lose count.

Concerning the countryside, what you described does not matter because, demographically speaking, they are less than 11% of the population. That means their overall impact on class relations is relatively small.

Concerning the cities, what you described is more important, but not everyone in the formal economy is a shopkeeper. There are far more people that are either not in the formal economy or are in it but only in an underemployed form.

[Fire]

They should clean up their house, polish their image, and get right back in the fight. Keep pressure on the new people as an opposition party.

https://youtu.be/_Z5OookwOoY?t=1m6s

[Luís Henrique]

Many of those who voted for the opposition actually support the Bolivarian revolution but are dissatisfied with it's leadership and wish to send a message to Maduro.

What kind of message is this?

Seriously, one guy I know once told me he was voting for a right-wing candidate to send a message to the PT that it was betraying its (att. Tim Cornelis) principles. I told him, "well, then vote for the PSTU, perhaps, because voting for the DEM, supposing that the PT could hear your "message" from the ballot box, can only mean you are not betraying your principles enough".

Luís Henrique