Bolivarianism is not socialist/communist and it is not an ideology that can lead to radical and emancipatory change in the world. I don't think entryism is a legitimate tactic so I would say that you should avoid Bolivarian groups.
Results 1 to 20 of 39
Which should be a communist's attitude towards Chávez's populism?
Should a communist stay apart from populism or should he/she infiltrate in the Bolivarian movement to do his/her ideological work?
Last edited by el_chavista; 16th May 2008 at 03:56.
¡Patria socialista o muerte, venceremos!
Bolivarianism is not socialist/communist and it is not an ideology that can lead to radical and emancipatory change in the world. I don't think entryism is a legitimate tactic so I would say that you should avoid Bolivarian groups.
"The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.
Workers of the World Unite!" -Karl Marx
"The dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the organization of the vanguard of the oppressed as the ruling class for the purpose of suppressing the oppressors, cannot result merely in an expansion of democracy. Simultaneously with an immense expansion of democracy, which for the first time becomes democracy for the poor, democracy for the people, and not democracy for the money-bags, the dictatorship of the proletariat imposes a series of restrictions on the freedom of the oppressors, the exploiters, the capitalists. " -Vladimir Lenin
"The People's democratic dictatorship needs the leadership of the working class. For it is only the working class that is most far-sighted, most selfless and most thoroughly revolutionary. The entire history of revolution proves that without the leadership of the working class revolution fails and that with the leadership of the working class revolution triumphs." -Mao Zedong
What purpose would entryism serve exactly? Reconstituting the ideological make up of the Bolivarian movement can do little to further your cause as it only helps strenghten the view that bourgeois parliamentarianism can bring change and/or that revolution can be brought down from above.
Rather, the communists should be working on the ground. In the trade unions, in the factories, in the slums.
Ya ok so we should stay apart from chavez's mass organization where all the working class people are and cry socialism with our little sect.
I hate such sectarian attitudes as they don't accomplish anything in the end.
The best thing for the Venezuelan communists to do is to work inside Chavez's organization where they can find a lot of working class people seeking for change and
promote Marxist-Leninist ideas. We should critically support Chavez and as I said promote Marxism-Leninism through his mass organization.
agree 100%. Critical support.
How about working in the trade unions, the workplaces, the streets where the real workers are. Practicing entryism into populist party can do very little.
I'm no expert on Bolivarianism, but how connected to the workers are the MVR (or more recently the PSUV)? If, like the Labour Parties in much of Europe, they are completely isolated from the working class but still manage to suceed off the back of populism, what is the purpose of practicing entryism?
I say we show critical support for Chavez, but in the workers own organs, not in and through his populist and social-democratic party/parties.
^^^ Agreed. The most notable remark that shows Chavez's true nature is the one I deliberately quoted for "sound bite" purposes:
“We know that one of Karl Marx's proposals was precisely that of the dictatorship of the proletariat, but that is not viable [...]”
Last edited by Die Neue Zeit; 17th May 2008 at 04:09.
"A new centrist project does not have to repeat these mistakes. Nobody in this topic is advocating a carbon copy of the Second International (which again was only partly centrist)." (Tjis, class-struggle anarchist)
"A centrist strategy is based on patience, and building a movement or party or party-movement through deploying various instruments, which I think should include: workplace organising, housing struggles [...] and social services [...] and a range of other activities such as sports and culture. These are recruitment and retention tools that allow for a platform for political education." (Tim Cornelis, left-communist)
Is that an argument or just a silly assertion without any pretense of support.
Why? Are Chavez's "mass organizations" capable of leading a radical and fundamentally emancipatory struggle against capitalism? If yes why? If no, why bother?
Marxist-Leninists in Venezuela should work towards establishing a Vanguard party! If they recruit from amongst Chavez's organizations, that's fine. However, it is pragmatic and opportunistic to just use entryism and it will lead to the failure of a revolutionary movement in Venezuela.
I support Chavez insofar as he is an anti-imperialist. I support that element of Chavez's policies. However, don't be confused. He is not a Communist. His orientation is a one that is in line with the interests of the national bourgeois class and is in opposition to the US imperialist class. While that makes his movement progressive in the historical sense, it also means that no organs of the Bolivarian revolution will be able to lead a Communist movement dedicated to creating a classless society.
"The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.
Workers of the World Unite!" -Karl Marx
"The dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the organization of the vanguard of the oppressed as the ruling class for the purpose of suppressing the oppressors, cannot result merely in an expansion of democracy. Simultaneously with an immense expansion of democracy, which for the first time becomes democracy for the poor, democracy for the people, and not democracy for the money-bags, the dictatorship of the proletariat imposes a series of restrictions on the freedom of the oppressors, the exploiters, the capitalists. " -Vladimir Lenin
"The People's democratic dictatorship needs the leadership of the working class. For it is only the working class that is most far-sighted, most selfless and most thoroughly revolutionary. The entire history of revolution proves that without the leadership of the working class revolution fails and that with the leadership of the working class revolution triumphs." -Mao Zedong
the people in the trade unions, workplaces and streets all support Chavez and the big majority is in the psuv. The PSUV has more than 6 million members, which are working class and most of them in urban centers. So good like finding "real" workers who are not in the PSUV.
I responded to your first question above. And the purpose of practicing entrism in a mass organization like the PSUV is pretty obvious. To reach out to the majority of the Venezuelan workers!
So if the party which is social-democratic does something right like say nationalize a key industry , you wont support it?What kind of mentality is this.
No it is reality.
Because that's where 6 million workers are. Almost the whole working class of Venezuela. So by practicing entrism in the PSUV you can quickly transform in a revolutionary situation like now, the PSUV into a party that is going to led "a radical and fundamentally emancipatory struggle against capitalism".
How will it lead to the failure of a revolutionary movement in Venezuela?
Ok build a vanguard party which is far from the workers.
How is his orientation in line with the interest of the national bourgeois class? Are you shitting me? Who tried to make a coup in 2002? The USA and the national Borgeois.
We need to reach out to the workers, not reach down to them. Whilst progress can be made in terms of support via entryism it does not further our cause. All it does is help perpetuate the view that "socialism" (what ever that may be) can be achieved by bourgeois parliamenary means in and through the actions of our "socialist" policy makers.
We are today seeing the effects of putting faith in these social-democrats bringing "socialism from above". Whilst real progress has been made we can see it's limits in Chavez's not to long past attempted power grabs and his violent quashing of workers actions (SIDOR workers).
It is time the communists made themselves heard in Venezuela instead of feeling obliged to hug up to Chavez for support.
I said we should offer critical support! What don't you understand about that?
If the Chavez government is making progress we should support it as such. However, just about the only progress we are seeing out of Venezuela is the communal councils and factory committees. These organisations are primarily the result of the workers and need to be supported and worked through.
On an unrelated note I would not call state capitalist nationalisation progressive in comparison to the Communal Councils and Factory Committees.
No it is not like that. By using entrism we reach out to the rank and file workers who are the vast majority of the membership and through doing work with them we agitate them to take control of the party overthrow the bureaucrats and move to socialism NOT through parliamentarism necessarily.
Well we don't want socialism from above that is why we perform entrism . In order to transform PSUV from below!
Stop spreading lies Chavez did not squash the workers. It was the police administration which is a remnant of the old state apparatus. And we critisize Chavez for having made not that many changes in the old bourgeois state apparatus. And that is more constructive(critisizing from inside) than forming a separate party and oppossing him completely with no echo to the majority of the working class.
We partly agree. I would add that the nationalization of the biggest part of the oil and natural gas, SIDOR and the cement factories and also some allocation of land are also positive things along with communal councils and factory comittees.Of course in order to make more progress in Venezuela is to work inside the PSUV and push , agitate and work with the rank and file membership. Every other method will not have an echoe to the working class.
My friend Marx also adds.
taken from the Communist Manifesto
I think lollipop got it right.
I too, support any gains that the working class has achieved through the bolivarian revolution and Chavez. Meaning I know Chavez won't bring socialism, but I defend any the anti-imperialists actions, and progresive changes he has made.
But of course the masses should continue moving foward to socialism when Chavez no longer helps them.
[FONT=Arial Black]WAR IS PEACE!
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY!
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH![/FONT]
-INGSOC slogans
Didn't the PSUV expel en masse a whole segment of Trot entryists?
"A new centrist project does not have to repeat these mistakes. Nobody in this topic is advocating a carbon copy of the Second International (which again was only partly centrist)." (Tjis, class-struggle anarchist)
"A centrist strategy is based on patience, and building a movement or party or party-movement through deploying various instruments, which I think should include: workplace organising, housing struggles [...] and social services [...] and a range of other activities such as sports and culture. These are recruitment and retention tools that allow for a platform for political education." (Tim Cornelis, left-communist)
No I haven't heard about something like that.
The IMT's section there is still working inside the PSUV and has faced no such problems from what I know.
Also note that even though our organization there is a couple or so years old it has hundreds of members and thousands of workers inside the PSUV are influenced by our comrades . The IMT is playing a major role as the left wing of the party and could potentially achieve big things there. Also note that our comrades participate(d) in factory occupations . That proves the superiority of our tactics .
Now let's hear about how the Communist sects influence the workers...
Fair enough, I will surrender this point. But whilst entryism can be used, the communists must at all time offer the most criticism possible.
ToucheOriginally Posted by LOLLIPOP
Yes I agree!
Btw Read Alan Wood's analysis and criticism on Venezuela on www.marxist.com it is really good .
um, whatever attitude you want to have, perhaps?
Every body bleeds RED
How is Bolivarian socialism not socialist?
Comrade, don't take that quote of Marx to heart too much. Apparently, Kautsky did in his renegade-era Social Democracy vs. Communism:
http://www.marx.org/archive/kautsky/...vscom/ch01.htm
Yes, we should work with REAL reformists within an SPD-type organization. No, that doesn't necessarily mean "entering" an establishment "reformist" party. For example, comrades like myself would work with pareconists in establishing a new "party" and work within that organization, even if the majority are reformist-minded (again, in the real and not welfarist sense).
"A new centrist project does not have to repeat these mistakes. Nobody in this topic is advocating a carbon copy of the Second International (which again was only partly centrist)." (Tjis, class-struggle anarchist)
"A centrist strategy is based on patience, and building a movement or party or party-movement through deploying various instruments, which I think should include: workplace organising, housing struggles [...] and social services [...] and a range of other activities such as sports and culture. These are recruitment and retention tools that allow for a platform for political education." (Tim Cornelis, left-communist)
