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

Chavez = Trotsky ?

POST REPLY
Log-in to remove advertisement.
Loz
Post 24 May 2012, 21:43
Quote:
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.

Yes and Mussolini sold excellent destroyers to the USSR, dried out the swamps and liquidated the Mafia.
All that doesn't make "Peronism" any less fascist.

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

I don't understand.

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

Third Position is fascism.

Quote:
It's not Kautskyan, it's Gramsci.

Source please.

Quote:
There is no need for a bloodbath in an armed revolution if you can create the legal and democratic path for a revolution.

That's reformism.
Post 24 May 2012, 21:46
Third positionism is not necessarily fascism. It can be liberal and even socialist. Although it is a shitty premise that more often than not leads to liberalism, it is not inherently fascist. Fascism is a reaction to class consciousness.
Loz
Post 24 May 2012, 21:50
Quote:
Fascism is a reaction to class consciousness.

Correct, my mistake.
But surely third positionism is also a reaction to class counsciousness? And more often than not "third position" regimes turned outright fascist.
Post 24 May 2012, 22:05
No you're absolutely correct. My only point was that third-positionism isn't necessarily fascist even if it frequently is.
Post 24 May 2012, 22:14
Quote:
It can be liberal and even socialist.


This makes no sense, this is why it's called the third position, between liberalism and socialism. It's basically nationalist state capitalism with an emphasis on class collaboration, and I've never met a third positionist that wasn't a fascist or a sympathizer.

You're going to have to explain.
Post 24 May 2012, 22:18
Third campists are third positionists. Also liberal third-positionists do not call themselves such but claim there is a third way between socialism and imperial capitalism. It's the same thinking across all ideologies: Evil capitalism, evil communism, we're right they're both wrong. Third Positionism is a charged term embraced by fascists but they don't hold the only claim to it.
Post 24 May 2012, 22:26
Classical peronism is third positionist, but not fascist. That's what troubles Loz. Since Peron's days, in the 40's, it moved way more to the Left. Nowadays, it still doesn't support an inmediate change in the mode of production, but it's as far left as you can go within capitalism.
However, Chavez is even to more the left. There are soviets in factories and in cities. It's not the main mode of production, but there is something new there.
Post 25 May 2012, 01:14
Dagoth Ur wrote:
Third campists are third positionists. Also liberal third-positionists do not call themselves such but claim there is a third way between socialism and imperial capitalism. It's the same thinking across all ideologies: Evil capitalism, evil communism, we're right they're both wrong. Third Positionism is a charged term embraced by fascists but they don't hold the only claim to it.


They definitely aren't, because they aren't trying to invent a new system between liberal capitalism and marxist communism. Can you provide an example of a liberal third positionist?

Liberals don't claim there's a third way, but that capitalism can be reformed. There are self-proclaimed socialists that do this too, but they're obviously part of the liberal camp.

Is there any precedent at all for this thinking?
Post 25 May 2012, 01:27
Well for a start there is the coherent liberal strategy of positioning itself as the un-totalitarian "alternative" to fascism and communism (aka libertarianism). Then you have your incoherent liberals who hate Imperial capitalism and Communism and claim Market-Socialism is the third way (aka "anti-American" liberal "activists"). And besides the idea that they have to come up with a new system isn't true of third position/camp thinking. It's just a tactic of presenting your vision as an alternative to extant forces. "Third Positionism" is the fascist brand of this tactic but it's not the only one.
Post 26 May 2012, 18:38
Dagoth, you're confusing the third position with the third way. The third way is a liberal comprise between state socialism and free-market capitalism, which favours a social-democratic mixed economy and the third position is a far-right comprise between state socialism and free-market capitalism, favouring fascist corporatism instead.
Post 26 May 2012, 20:39
It's the same thing different name.
Post 26 May 2012, 20:44
^ Sounds like a spin off of the social-fascist line.
Post 19 May 2016, 23:32
No he isnt a Trotskyist of course. Chavez's concept of socialism was based in anti-imperialism and latin american integration
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.
[ Top ]