Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Soviet cogitations: 1537
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jan 2010, 05:46 Ideology: Marxism-Leninism Party Member  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.
 "Those who do not move, do not notice their chains." - Rosa Luxemburg Long Live The Bolivarian Revolution! RIP Muamar Qadafi RIP Hugo Chavez 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.
Soviet cogitations: 1537
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jan 2010, 05:46 Ideology: Marxism-Leninism Party Member 02 Sep 2010, 03:11
Okay thanks I got a little worried there
"Those who do not move, do not notice their chains." - Rosa Luxemburg Long Live The Bolivarian Revolution! RIP Muamar Qadafi RIP Hugo Chavez
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44 Ideology: None Philosophized 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.
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
Soviet cogitations: 1537
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jan 2010, 05:46 Ideology: Marxism-Leninism Party Member 02 Sep 2010, 18:11
Are you sure he hasn't mentioned Castro?
"Those who do not move, do not notice their chains." - Rosa Luxemburg Long Live The Bolivarian Revolution! RIP Muamar Qadafi RIP Hugo Chavez 02 Sep 2010, 21:30
Order227 wrote: 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.  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.
The moment one accepts the notion of 'totalitarianism', one is firmly locked within the liberal-democratic horizon. - Slavoj Žižek
Soviet cogitations: 4764
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Jul 2007, 06:59 Ideology: Marxism-Leninism Forum Commissar 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.  "You say you have no enemies? How is this so? Have you never spoken the truth, never loved justice?" - Santiago Ramón y Cajal Forum Rules 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. 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.
"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."
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.
"If I could control Hollywood, I could control the world." -Joseph Stalin
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 ★I AM A PROGRESSIVE SOCIALIST IN FAVOR OF DEMOCRACY★"
☮★☭★☭☮ Pro Palestine, Pro Working class, Pro Union, Pro Progressive Tax, Pro Democracy, Pro Syndicalism, Pro Socialist 17 May 2012, 13:47
But he's not following it at all.
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
Soviet cogitations: 3829
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2006, 02:14 Ideology: Marxism-Leninism Politburo 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. 17 May 2012, 15:13
Quote: Why didn't he throw Jesus in as well? Quote: Yes, for what, 10 years now? For 10 years they haven't even managed to nationalize banks. Some Socialism... Quote: 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....
Soviet cogitations: 3829
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2006, 02:14 Ideology: Marxism-Leninism Politburo 17 May 2012, 15:48
Loz wrote: He is a devout Christian. I thought you already knew that. Loz wrote: 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... 24 May 2012, 20:32
Quote: So was Peron. And every other Fascist. Quote: Yes but that's irrelevant. What matters is whether or not the neccessary steps are being taken, which obviously isn't the case. Quote: 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.
Soviet cogitations: 3829
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2006, 02:14 Ideology: Marxism-Leninism Politburo 24 May 2012, 20:55
Loz wrote: Peron wasn't a fascist and, what's more important, his followers aren't. Loz wrote: They are. You may not agree with the speed of the revolution, but there are a lot of things going on. Loz wrote: 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. 24 May 2012, 21:07
Quote: 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: What kind of logic is that? From progressive social-democracy to "transition towards socialism"? Quote: National-Populism really, but really, sounds like fascism. Quote: 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.
Soviet cogitations: 3829
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2006, 02:14 Ideology: Marxism-Leninism Politburo 24 May 2012, 21:18
Loz wrote: 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: Actual politics. Try jumping to socialism from one day to the other being dependant on oil exports to the USA. Quote: That's because you already don't know anymore what fascism is. Quote: 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. |
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
|
||||||
