Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Login ] [ Active ]

Chavez = Trotsky ?

POST REPLY
Log-in to remove advertisement.
Post 02 Sep 2010, 02:11
Is Chavez a Trotskyist ? Because the PSUV is a member of the International Marxist Tendency which is a Trotskyist organization.
Post 02 Sep 2010, 02:38
A part of the PSUV is a member, but not all of it. Chavez has his own ideology that owes its heritage to Marxism, but he is not a Trotskyist.
Post 02 Sep 2010, 03:11
Okay thanks I got a little worried there
Post 02 Sep 2010, 16:46
If anything, he's a bit of a post-Marxist, i.e. leaning on basic Marxist tradition, but adding a lot of his own "innovations" and tending to improvise in many situations, rather than following a traditional set of responses. Also, I've never heard of him referencing Trotsky, Stalin, Castro, Mao in any of his speeches or writings.
Post 02 Sep 2010, 18:11
Are you sure he hasn't mentioned Castro?
Post 02 Sep 2010, 21:30
Order227 wrote:
Also, I've never heard of him referencing Trotsky, Stalin, Castro, Mao in any of his speeches or writings.


Incorrect. Although Chavez is certainly not a trotskyist, and as far as I'm concerned not any kind of marxist (although 'post-marxist' would probably be a good way to describe how he styles himself). He's done some damn good things, don't get me wrong, but he hasn't made that important jump to nationalization and disappropriation of the big bourgeoisie. Hopefully its just taking time and not just hot air.
Post 05 Sep 2010, 03:20
The IMT is an entryist grouping, they have members in a number of workers' parties, frrom the PSUV to the Labour Party in the UK where they descend from the Militant Tendency.
Post 05 Sep 2010, 03:30
Yeah, the Militant Tendency has a group in the PRD in Mexico, which is a leftist, but definitely not a Marxist party.

Anyways, I think Chavez made a speech about Lenin last year. It was posted here somewhere. He's also expressed his disagreement with some imperialist undercurrents in Marx.
Post 13 Sep 2010, 03:13
I've read some parts of 'Reformism or Revolution', an analysis of Alan Woods, the head of the IMT, of the Bolivarian Revolution Events in the light of the works of Heinz Dieterich (I'll keep opinions on him for another topic [he's a reformist, however
])

Here's a review: http://www.gnostics.com/woods.html

I don't think is going to be 'a classic of marxism,' but is a good book.
Well, anti-trots won't like it, of course. And neither anti-entryism trotskists.
Post 14 Oct 2011, 00:31
Chavez, a Marxist? "21st Century Socialism" is just the old Social-Democracy with a new name + somewhat radical anti-imperialism and more or less radical discourse.
JAM
Post 16 Mar 2012, 03:56
I don't think Chavez fulfills all the requirements to be consider a marxist, much less trotskyist. His political spectrum can be viewed as a latin american version of social-democracy, similar to the bolivian and other countries of the region like Brazil where anti- americanism is a milestone to every leader. The parties international affiliations sometimes don't mean anything. Hosni Mubarak party was also member of the Socialist International and i doubt he was social-democratic.
Post 17 May 2012, 05:37
Chavez has stated that he is a follower of Trotsky's theory of Permanent Revolution.
http://www.marxist.com/chavez-trotskyis ... 120107.htm
Post 17 May 2012, 13:47
But he's not following it at all.
Post 17 May 2012, 14:58
Chavez has said he follows Bolivar, San Martin, Martí, Perón, Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Fidel, etc, etc.

Like any other person, he has a lots of influences. But he's leading his country on its own path to Socialism.
There is a considerably big trotskist movement inside the PSUV, but luckily, it hasn't taken control of it. And it won't.
Loz
Post 17 May 2012, 15:13
Quote:
Chavez has said he follows Bolivar, San Martin, Martí, Perón, Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Fidel, etc, etc.

Why didn't he throw Jesus in as well?


Quote:
But he's leading his country on its own path to Socialism.

Yes, for what, 10 years now? For 10 years they haven't even managed to nationalize banks.
Some Socialism...


Quote:
There is a considerably big trotskist movement inside the PSUV, but luckily, it hasn't taken control of it. And it won't.

I'd welcome that, actually. Of course i don't like Trotskites but it'd certainly be nice or at least interesting for a somewhat more revolutionary force to emerge in Venezuela....
Post 17 May 2012, 15:48
Loz wrote:
Why didn't he throw Jesus in as well?

He is a devout Christian. I thought you already knew that.

Loz wrote:
Yes, for what, 10 years now? For 10 years they haven't even managed to nationalize banks.
Some Socialism...

Do you really think you can change the mode of production in a country in 10 years?
There isn't the need to do that, yet. He did threaten the banks to cooperate or get nationalized this january. So far, they're cooperating...
Loz
Post 24 May 2012, 20:32
Quote:
He is a devout Christian. I thought you already knew that.

So was Peron. And every other Fascist.

Quote:
Do you really think you can change the mode of production in a country in 10 years?

Yes but that's irrelevant. What matters is whether or not the neccessary steps are being taken, which obviously isn't the case.

Quote:
He did threaten the banks to cooperate or get nationalized this january. So far, they're cooperating...

Hah. He "threatened". Communists don't "threaten" the bourgeoisie, the people do what they have to do to move towards communism.
This is nothing but forcing the banks to make some concessions, which is something all bourgeois countries do.
It's evident that there is no Dictatorship of the proletariat in Venezuela.
Chavez is a progressive, "national" social-democrat. That's about it.
Post 24 May 2012, 20:55
Loz wrote:
So was Peron. And every other Fascist.

Peron wasn't a fascist and, what's more important, his followers aren't.

Loz wrote:
Yes but that's irrelevant. What matters is whether or not the neccessary steps are being taken, which obviously isn't the case.

They are. You may not agree with the speed of the revolution, but there are a lot of things going on.

Loz wrote:
Hah. He "threatened". Communists don't "threaten" the bourgeoisie, the people do what they have to do to move towards communism.
This is nothing but forcing the banks to make some concessions, which is something all bourgeois countries do.
It's evident that there is no Dictatorship of the proletariat in Venezuela.
Chavez is a progressive, "national" social-democrat. That's about it.

Chavez is indeed a progressive, "national" social-democrat. Therefore he's doing a transition towards socialism.

You're having a really hard time to understand what we call "Nac&Pop" (National and Popular) movements. It's about antiimperialism, development and democratic transition towards socialism. It's not the same as in Europe, because our material conditions are different.
Loz
Post 24 May 2012, 21:07
Quote:
Peron wasn't a fascist and, what's more important, his followers aren't.

Sure he was. Third-position fascism.
Not to mention that he spent years in exile in Franco's Spain, praised Mussolini and gave refuge to such charming types as Dr. Mengele.

Quote:
Therefore he's doing a transition towards socialism.

What kind of logic is that? From progressive social-democracy to "transition towards socialism"?

Quote:
You're having a really hard time to understand what we call "Nac&Pop" (National and Popular) movements

National-Populism really, but really, sounds like fascism.


Quote:
It's about antiimperialism, development and democratic transition towards socialism.

There's no such thing as " democratic transition" towards socialism. That's, if i'm not mistaken, Kautskyan revisionism.
You can have capitalism and you can have socialism. Of course that doesn't mean that we can't speak of a transition towards socialism as building of socialism, but that's possible only after the dictatorship of the proletariat has been firmly established and the bourgeoisie supressed. There's no third path.
Post 24 May 2012, 21:18
Loz wrote:
Sure he was. Third-position fascism.
Not to mention that he spent years in exile in Franco's Spain, praised Mussolini and gave refuge to such charming types as Dr. Mengele.

And he established relations with the USSR, mediated in the Berlin Crisis of '47, fullfilled all the communists and socialists labour requests, denounced imperialism, created an latin american union of unions, quoted Mao a lot in his books, wrote a letter praising Che when he died, etc, etc.

Quote:
What kind of logic is that? From progressive social-democracy to "transition towards socialism"?

Actual politics. Try jumping to socialism from one day to the other being dependant on oil exports to the USA.

Quote:
National-Populism really, but really, sounds like fascism.

That's because you already don't know anymore what fascism is.

Quote:
It's about antiimperialism, development and democratic transition towards socialism.

There's no such thing as " democratic transition" towards socialism. That's, if i'm not mistaken, Kautskyan revisionism.
You can have capitalism and you can have socialism. Of course that doesn't mean that we can't speak of a transition towards socialism as building of socialism, but that's possible only after the dictatorship of the proletariat has been firmly established and the bourgeoisie supressed. There's no third path.[/quote]
It's not Kautskyan, it's Gramsci. There is no need for a bloodbath in an armed revolution if you can create the legal and democratic path for a revolution. People need to believe and accept the revolution, otherwise it doesn't last.
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.
cron
[ Top ]