The REDSTAR2000 Papers

Listen to the worm of doubt, for it speaks truth. - Leftist Discussion

Communism in Venezuela? August 6, 2004 by RedStar2000

As often happens, we have a new "hero" on the "left"...and you know the consequences. All critical thinking stops as many folks start breaking out the champagne to celebrate "the revolution".

When will we ever learn?


Chavez is a left-bourgeois populist reformer...and not any kind of socialist, much less a communist.

He's never expressed the slightest interest in changing the class nature of Venezuelan capitalism.

He does seem quite sincerely opposed to U.S. imperialism...and appears to have a vision of a Latin American "E.U." -- an economic/political union large enough to "stand up" to the American empire.

Nothing wrong with that...but it will still be capitalism.
First posted at Che-Lives on July 24, 2004

Well, comrade, here's a lesson for you...and one that might be profitably considered by others.

I've noticed over the decades that whenever a bourgeois politician begins to use "left rhetoric", a great many leftists put their critical thinking abilities on "hold" and instead begin to positively gush over "the hero of the hour" who's going to do "wonderful things" for us.

It's the "hope springs eternal" syndrome; the left may be too weak to make a revolution but "hey, this guy's going to do it for us!"

Wow, boys and girls, how about that!

No...that's not how it works. Bourgeois politicians (Chavez, Lula, Allende, Kirchner, etc.) do not "transcend" their class limitations. A paternalistic and bureaucratic social democracy that respects the rights of capitalist property is the best they can ever do...and most of the time, they don't even do that.

There may or may not be a genuine revolution in Venezuela in the near future (I wouldn't bet the rent money on it...but it's certainly not impossible). If there is such a revolution, it will be easily recognized by the fact that the working class itself seizes power and begins at once an all-out war against the bourgeoisie...smashing the bourgeois state-apparatus, expropriating capitalist property without compensation, dismantling the armed forces and forming a popular militia, etc.

We know what real revolutions look like...there's nothing like that happening yet in Venezuela.
First posted at Che-Lives on July 29, 2004


Whoa! Allende did transcend class limitations...

Allende did not dissolve the bourgeois army and arm the Chilean working class.



It is worth looking at the path Castro took 1959-61 to see how an initially bourgeois politician can be pushed by events and the masses...

It is indeed. The open hostility of U.S. imperialism towards perfectly "ordinary" agrarian reform convinced Castro and other leading members of the 26th of July Movement that "their only hope" was material support from the USSR...and the best way to "nail down" that support was to adopt the mechanisms and rhetoric of USSR-style socialism.

The masses were never consulted on this decision...and the consequence was that Cuba became a kind of "neo-colony" of the USSR. Perhaps that was inevitable...Cuba was simply too small and too under-developed to avoid being someone's colony.

But even the use of Marxist rhetoric cannot be a substitute for proletarian revolution.

Chavez and Venezuela have no USSR to appeal there's nothing to be gained by Marxist rhetoric in their case. Again, as I noted earlier, Chavez and his top advisers seem to desire a Latin American version of the E.U. -- an "economic bloc" large enough to "make a better deal" with U.S. imperialism.

Again, there's nothing wrong with that...but it's neither socialism nor communism.


The problem here, Redstar, is that you, for some reason, don't operate with the term a revolutionary situation. What is a revolutionary situation? It is when the mass of people enter active politics and try to change their own fate actively.

The question at the beginning of the thread, if you'll recall, was about Chavez...and I answered it. From what I can tell, your Mr. Woods agrees with me so I don't see why you don't also agree with me.

I frankly do not pretend to know whether there is "a revolutionary situation" in Venezuela or not; I don't read Spanish and I don't know anyone who lives there and is active in the Bolivarian circles.

As a matter of principle, I am opposed to U.S. imperialism in all I'm not required to issue Venezuela a "certificate of socialist authenticity" in order to support their resistance to imperialism.

Apparently Mr. Woods' particular variety of Trotskyism has some degree of public influence in Venezuela, providing sufficient reason for his enthusiasm over the course of events there. That's understandable.

But, as I noted earlier, there are many examples in history of left-bourgeois populist reformers gaining the enthusiastic support of "Marxists"...only to see it all crumble into disillusionment and despair and, of course, "betrayal". I put the world "betrayal" in quotes because a bourgeois politician is not guilty of treason against a proletarian revolution he never intended to make.

My suspicion is that you have a heavy emotional investment in the outcome of events in Venezuela...but your "bonds" are not "investment grade", if you catch my meaning.

Most likely, they're "junk".
First posted at Che-Lives on July 30, 2004


Now the reason Venezuela is so important is that what happens there will have a heavy influence on the rest of Latin America. All over Latin America people are dissatisfied and have no hopes in capitalism. As a marxist I would like a socialist revolution, as should you.

Indeed, I would "like" a proletarian revolution in Venezuela very much...or anyplace else, for that matter.

Unfortunately, history does not arrange itself according to our "likes". As Marxists, we should develop "a clear eye" and see what things really are...not just what they may "call themselves".

Revolutionaries are particularly prone, it seems to me, to "errors of unjustified optimism" -- starting with Marx and Engels themselves. It's understandable and perhaps even unavoidable...we both "want" and "expect" history to move "in our direction" that we "see" that "happening"...even when it isn't.

I think we should be exceptionally skeptical and vigilant when there are political forces that adopt leftist pretenses as verbal concessions to the masses.

One may enjoy transient gains in popularity by supporting such forces...but the political "hang-over" is awful!


Better than viewing things from one's easy chair.

At my age, alas, it's the best I can do.
First posted at Che-Lives on July 30, 2004


...this is a situation where either we will have a successful socialist revolution or the Venezuelan masses will face grim reaction. Now in a situation like this it is a crime for people claiming to be marxists to still cling to the textbook as a substitute for revolutionary work.

How do you know that the alternatives are socialist revolution or grim reaction?

Please spare me the "dialectical mysticism" -- I would like to see some real evidence of those "soviet-style" bodies and some indication of how much real power they actually have.

Thus far, it looks to me like a "neo-bourgeois" revolution (to coin a phrase)...the mobilization of mass support to overthrow the old Venezuelan elite and install a new one. If successful, the outcome would be a Latin American "Sweden"...more "colorful" if somewhat less "efficient".

I repeat again: there's nothing wrong with that.

But it's not communism.


Chavez also claims the not a communist one.

I agree with him.


...but when Chavez says "some might call what we have here in Venezuela socialism, some might simply call it democracy, others might even call it Christianity- here in Venezuela we call it Bolivarianism"...WHAT DOES HE MEAN?

It means he wants to side-step any real questions about the class nature of Venezuelan society.


Is it simply a bourgeois revolution? Then why the referenda, recall mechanisms, popular organisation into revolutionary defense groups (Circulos Bolivarianos), and the recent call to the Venezuelan people that they learn how to use firearms in order to defend the revolution?

We forget that in the mid-19th century, the European bourgeoisie also contained its militant and radical democratic elements.

What has been missing thus far is a direct challenge to the institution of private property itself.

If that happens, then you've got something.


This argument is the same as that run by The Economist magazine, which accuses Chavez of "bribing" the Venezuelan people to vote for him by providing health care, housing, education, hospitals, roads, and land redistribution. Quite a valid criticism, if you are so sceptical of democracy that you cannot imagine the popular and constructive input of the majority, the working classes, in the political process. In short, little more than cynicism.

The Economist is worthy of close attention from Marxists -- Marx himself used it whenever he wanted to discuss serious and authoritative ruling class opinion. (I can't afford it, unfortunately, it's about $130 a year!)

They are not being "cynical" -- they understand bourgeois elections far more clearly than most lefties (unfortunately!). To the bourgeoisie, a "free election" is one that can be bought. The Economist's gripe with Chavez is that he is out-bidding the old Venezuelan elite.


I don't KNOW if Chavez is a Marxist or not...

...but you HOPE so, right?


But as has already been mentioned, Chavez, to an increasing extent, is ceasing to be the determining principle in the "chavista" movement or the 'bolivarian revolution'.

Again, this appears to me to be wishful thinking on your part. Has a Marxist understanding of class society emerged from the Bolivarian Circles? Are there significant popular demands to overthrow the bourgeois order?


Chavez still needs the support of this central layer to maintain his government and its revolutionary reforms, while also supporting the organisation of the poorer and working classes.

I don't think there is any such thing as a "revolutionary reform"...and I suspect such notions are at the root of the rather confused view of Chavez expressed in this thread.

There are such things as real proletarian revolutions and they are easy to spot...nothing in bourgeois politics looks anything like them.

It's certainly possible that one will take place in Venezuela...but I see few signs of that thus far.


The organic (and government aided) organising within the working class and union movement, etc..... All of these point toward something.

It's hard to disagree with that...everything "points towards something".

Towards what, is the question.


To make flippant comparisons of Chavez with a handful of present and past Latin American leaders really misses the point--and the complex nuances that make the Venezuelan society that is being born what it is. Despite even some of the close analogies that can be made, Chavez is not a Lula, nor a Peron, nor even an Allende.

"Complex nuances" is another one of those "universal phrases" that can stand for any meaning at any time.

No sensible person denies that every historical process has its "unique" features; but is Venezuela that unique?


Redstar seems to think we KNOW what revolutions look like. Well, which particular bits of the BOLIVARIAN revolution makes it less of a revolution (or incipient revolution) and "simply" a reform?

No organs of direct working class power have appeared; no significant dispossession of the bourgeoisie has taken place; the professional army and police forces have not been dispersed; the prisons have not been emptied; etc., etc., etc.

"Incipient revolution"? I've already agreed that such may be the case...but you guys are breaking out the champagne in the middle of the third inning.


There is this horrible niggle in my mind that Chavez (at least), if not a lot of leading chavistas (those who are from the former parties of the left in Venezuela), are trying to do some kind of 'internal revolution' (they use the term inclusive a fair bit)--stretching the bourgeois democratic and economic framework as far as it will go until it snaps...

Wouldn't that be clever of them? However, the bourgeois "framework" has already "snapped" twice -- the coup and the subsequent "general lockout" -- and the "radical chavistas" have yet to respond. Had they been serious about a revolutionary alternative, either occasion would have served to introduce "draconian" measures to smash the old ruling class.

I don't think that's a "horrible niggle"'s just more wishful thinking.


But to not support the progressive process that is in Venezuela, and, for now, its leadership, even critically, is to fall prey to the other side of the class divide, and fight alongside imperialism.

An old and incorrect idea on the left...that we must "support" (even "critically") anybody who is an enemy of U.S. imperialism.

Our communist obligation is to oppose our own ruling class and its imperial ambitions no matter who its enemies around the world may be.

It's a negative thing, not a positive thing.

I didn't support the Taliban (not even "critically") in Afghanistan, I opposed U.S. imperialism when they invaded that country. I didn't support the Hussein despotism in Iraq, I opposed U.S. imperialism when they invaded that country.

We must oppose "our own" ruling class first.

That's fundamental!

Now, as to what we support: my view is that we should support proletarian resistance to capitalism wherever it actually exists. Marxist rhetoric (much less populist rhetoric) is not a substitute for actual existence.

Naturally, in the next wave of real proletarian revolutions, we should actively support them...or, better still, take part in one of them.

If there is a real proletarian revolution in Venezuela, terrific! If there are Marxist revolutionaries in Venezuela who work inside the bolivarian circles or the new trade unions with that perspective, then I support them.

But for the moment, "Hands Off Venezuela!" seems an appropriate response.


Oh, and Castro wasn't "pushed" left. He was a convinced Marxist for years before the triumph over Batista--although this is a fact many on the left find hard to concede--or understand.

Yes, the reason that we find that "hard to concede or understand" is that it utterly lacks credibility.

Shortly after the Cuban revolution, Castro actually visited Washington, D.C., where he was briefed on the "communist threat" in Cuba and said that he was "well aware of the danger" and would not let the Cuban revolution "be taken over".

Was he just being a really clever liar...or was he telling the simple truth? Certainly there's nothing at all "Marxist" about his famous "History Will Absolve Me" speech.

I think the evidence is pretty clear. The hostility of Washington to even modest bourgeois agrarian reform shoved Castro into the arms of the USSR.

If I'm not mistaken, Chavez visited China a short time ago. A straw in the wind?
First posted at Che-Lives on August 2, 2004


That's not really an option. Capitalism can no longer afford that kind of welfare state in Sweden, let alone in Venezuela.

Given their oil reserves and the likely increase in value of those reserves, they might be able to afford it in Venezuela for quite a while.

But I'll grant you that alternative options are perhaps more likely...a "deal" is made somewheres along the line and "normality" is restored or matters escalate to the level of a real proletarian revolution.


I don't know why you have this mythical view on Sweden.

I don't know why you think I "do" have such a view. I am not "advocating" the "Swedish model" in just seems to me to be one of the plausible outcomes of the situation.


Well, take a look.

Ok, I did that. The events described are not without interest but remain on a very small scale.

Meanwhile, the Chavez government continues to take "one step forward & one step backwards".

It is certainly a volatile situation...but I don't think your evidence justifies the term "revolutionary situation" -- at least not yet.

Self-directed activity by the masses remains on too small a scale.


Now you will probably not even listen to me.

I listen to lots of people...why not you? What seems to upset some people so much as that I won't necessarily "fall in line" and agree with them.

Shame on me.


Redstar, to give you an impression on what kind of opposition we are dealing with. And why a deal with the bourgeoisie seems to be impossible, I post this. So Venezuela is facing reaction if these people succeed.

At the moment, it appears that Chavez will win the referendum. That the opposition would much prefer a "Pinochet" is unquestionable; thus far it seems that they have been unable to find one (though not, perhaps, for lack of volunteers distinguished by their gross incompetence).

The logic of the situation suggests a back-room deal between moderate "chavistas" and moderate "oppositionists" to "restore normalcy".

Will the Venezuelan people accept that? Or will they take matters into their own hands?

That remains a question...and not a "foregone conclusion".
First posted at Che-Lives on August 2, 2004


Worker activists, rank and file workers, poor, etc., all look to Chavez.

Yeah, they probably do.

That's a shame...because they're almost certain to be bitterly disappointed.

Who, I wonder, will they "look to" then?

To a Trotskyist party that "critically supported" Chavez?

People should keep in mind the fact that the Venezuelan Trotskyists are actually doing precisely what Lenin and Trotsky told them to left-bourgeois reformism as long as it's popular -- then, present themselves as the "revolutionary" alternative when reformism fails to improve the conditions of the masses.

Remember the goal -- it's not power for the working class, it's power for the "vanguard party" this case a Trotskyist party. Their strategy is designed to put themselves into power, and it "makes sense" in their terms.

Should the propitious moment arrive, they will present themselves as the "real" bolivarians and denounce Chavez as "a fake".

Will that moment arrive? Probably not...although life is "full of surprises".

One thing can be safely predicted: if the Venezuelan Trotskyists ever do "seize power", they will then...act like Stalinists.

It's "hard-wired" into the paradigm.
First posted at Che-Lives on August 17, 2004


To Redstar: what a bunch of mindless blabber you cooked up...

Oh, did I blow your "cover"?

Gosh, I'm really sorry about that.


Our goal is nothing more than uniting them and build a new form of society, workers control of industry, direct participation of the workers etc. For that one needs a democratic centralist party...

...who will "run the show" after the "revolution"!

Why be "shy" about that here? If you can't tell the truth about your ambitions to the Venezuelans, you can certainly tell the truth on this board.


...and meanwhile you will continue as the great internetguru I reckon? How nice and cosy that must be...

It has its compensations...for one thing, I never have to lie to people.


I'm sorry Redstar but what are you talking about here?

About the real goal of Venezuelan Trotskyist "support" of Chavez, of course. People in this thread are criticizing the Trotskyists for the wrong reasons.

Yes, they are wallowing in the muck of left-bourgeois reformism...but not because they are left-bourgeois reformists themselves. It's part of their strategy to "win the confidence" of the masses.

As I said, should the opportunity arise, they intend to present themselves as "the real bolivarians" while denouncing Chavez as a "fake"...inviting the Venezuelan masses to put them in power.

At which time, they will, indeed, "act like Stalinists".

You have to look at this stuff historically. When Leninists are out of power, they try to imitate Lenin in the years prior to the October 1917 coup. If and when they get into power, then (and only then!) is it time to "act like Stalin"...or, for that matter, like Trotsky when he was part of the power elite.

Does the Trotskyist strategy in Venezuela act to advance the class struggle? Oddly enough, it almost certainly least for the time being. I think they are completely sincere in their attempts to "radicalize" the bolivarian circles, etc. At some point, they may even raise the demand "All Power to the Bolivarian Circles" or something along those lines...and they'll "mean it".

But what they really want is to be "leaders" of those circles, "delegates" to bigger assemblies of those circles, and, ultimately, the guys "in charge" of a "revolutionary government". They want Chavez's job...and all that goes with that.

In the unlikely event that such a sequence of developments transpires as to put them in those positions...look out!

(Note that Chavez himself is making noises about "reconciliation" with his conservative the most likely outcome is a "deal" and the gradual cooling off of ferment among the masses. The Venezuelan Trotskyists will probably never get their "chance" to run things.)

Now, is there anything different that revolutionaries in Venezuela "might have done" to promote a more radical outcome?

Probably not...the great majority of the Venezuelan masses are, as you might expect, quite backward in their general outlook. Venezuela is not an advanced capitalist country...though parts of it are well-developed. It quite resembles, when you stop and think about it, Russia c.1900. As long as people are still in the stage where they seek a "redeemer", then any kind of self-emancipation is simply beyond their horizons. They can overthrow a despot...but only to replace him with a new "revolutionary" despot.

There are a few Venezuelan anarchists, by the way, who are telling the truth to the masses about "redeemers" and the need to liberate themselves. Unfortunately, their impact is -- as far as I can tell -- quite marginal.

Material reality is "a harsh mistress".


You ever hear of the concept of the lesser of two evils?

Yep. Myself, I'd rather choose a "good".
First posted at Che-Lives on August 17, 2004


I'd like Redstar to explain clearly exactly where he believes that the demand for workers militias and workers control of factories and key sectors of the economy - will mysteriously (as if by magic) hand power over to tiny clique of evil trot dictators who will run the country in a stalinesque manner.

There's nothing "magical" about the process...we saw Lenin & Company actually do precisely that. I don't have to remind you of the details; you've memorized them.

You need a reliable cadre, of course, probably in the range of 50,000-100,000 members in a country the size of Venezuela...and we know you don't have that now.

But, should the class struggle "heat up", you can hope to gain that cadre fairly quickly...perhaps in six to nine months, perhaps less. During the summer and fall of 1917, the Bolshevik party membership exploded in numbers.

Once you have that -- people who are willing to be bound by party discipline and carry out the orders of their leaders -- the rest is pretty straight-forward. You "pack" popular meetings and assemblies, put forward "ultra-left" resolutions and proposals (that you have no intention of implementing after the revolution), get yourselves elected to leading positions in those assemblies, arm your cadre if they are not already armed, and...seize state power "in the name" of those assemblies.

Then, to "defend the revolution" from its enemies, you repudiate all that "ultra-left" crap, suppress your enemies on the left, and proceed to "administer" the "dictatorship of the proletariat".

Pretty simple, really...though making it work is fraught with difficulties.

One thing you evidently lack thus far is a "great leader"...a charismatic figure like Lenin or Trotsky. (You could try to hire Bob Avakian, but I don't think he speaks Spanish. *laughs*)

Perhaps the current party leader could be persuaded to take "charisma lessons"...but he may have to withdraw to the background in favor of a secondary party leader who has "the common touch".

Meanwhile, it seems to me that thus far you are indeed doing what Lenin and Trotsky told you to do...and doing it as well as or even better than could be expected.

Your future depends, however, on the persisting intransigence of Chavez's reactionary opposition. If the "business community" decides that it's "time to make a deal"...then the purely ideological reactionaries will shrink to a small minority and the "struggle" will be "over" (unless the U.S. invades, of course).

Chavez will have become "the FDR" of Venezuela. There will be a flurry of additional populist reforms and then things will gradually "cool down".

The biggest problem you will then face is whether or not to take government jobs. If you decide to do it -- and most Leninist parties yield to the temptation -- then you will become reformist and corrupt.


I'd also like him to show us where all these "lies" are in our articles; when he says "lies" I think he actually just means that we've not been foaming at the mouth shouting "FUCK CHAVEZ" and other slogans helpful to the bolivarian revolution.

There's only one lie...and it's a lie of omission. You firmly believe that your party should "run the show" after the revolution. I don't think you are telling the Venezuelan people that; I think you're just passing yourselves off as "super-bolivarians"...hoping that people will think (someday soon) that you are "even better than Chavez".

Should you successfully seize power, then "the truth will out".


Is it currently in your power to replace Chavez with something better?

No? Well then, shut the fuck up.

Do you have any "people's police" (armed thugs) to make us "shut up"?

No? Well then, go fuck yourself! *laughs*

You can't suppress your "ultra-left" critics until you have state power, dummy.

Also, you're blowing your own cover...revealing one of your real intentions before you can carry it out.

Lenin & Trotsky would be all over your clumsy ass!
First posted at Che-Lives on August 19, 2004

quote: can someone like myself, a gardener from the East of Scotland, hope to become the new dictator of a Venezuelan Stalinist police state???

It would seem an unlikely turn of fate, to be sure. *laughs*

I was speaking of Venezuelan Trotskyists, of course...not their cheerleaders in the U.K.

For you guys, a successful Trotskyist "revolution" (coup) would be an enormous boost in your prestige and your recruiting prospects in the U.K.

I do find your current reticence yourselves are not in Venezuela, so why this unwillingness to acknowledge what the Trotskyist strategy really is?


Surely if we were all so mad and power hungry we'd simply be right wing capitalist types?

Yes, that's the popular "road to suck-cess".

But "madness" and "power-hunger" come in more than one form; there are those who experience these feelings for entirely altruistic reasons.

"Had I the power, I would raise up the lowly, bring down the mighty, and smite the evil-doers, etc."

So why not try to get that power?

Many people are still stuck in the mind-set of "seeking a redeemer" (hence the appeal of figures like Chavez)...why not be the "redeemer"?

Or at least the guy who holds the "redeemer's" overcoat?


Do you really believe...everyone else is fighting with secret motives pretending to be communists but secretly just trying to "become dictators"?

It's not a "secret" least to people on this board. Good grief, how many threads have we had where the Leninist paradigm was discussed in detail?

Perhaps it's because you sense "a real chance" in Venezuela that you've developed this sudden "coyness". In Venezuela, I expect you're circulating plenty of copies of the Spanish translation of State and Revolution.

Right now, it's "strategically important" to be perceived as "ultra-democratic".

If things go your way, then the strategy will change.


I said that I am firmly against the seizure of power by a revolutionary minority. How does this "blow my cover" and "reveal my real intentions"? I am for socialist revolution but the majority must be actively involved.

Of course the majority "must be actively involved"...until your party is actually in power. Then the majority must, "actively obedient", how's that sound?


All we do is to fight for a socialist transformation of society in all the places this should be done.

Yes, that's true. It's also true that we know exactly what you mean by "a socialist transformation of society".

We have the practice of Lenin, Stalin, and Trotsky to guide our "prediction".

It's not "rocket science".
First posted at Che-Lives on August 19, 2004


Redstar, it's not serious saying people will do something just because they have to fill in some model you see things in.

Why not? We have a "model" of imperialism, do we not? What it routinely does and the reasons it does those things? The model is good enough that our predictions have a considerably better track record than chance, right?

From a Marxist standpoint, our model is historical and materialist -- it doesn't depend on "personal villainy", pathological "lust for power", or any such trivia.

In general form, it would say: if you want to do X in objective conditions Y, the result will be, if history is any guide, Z.

That has nothing to do with your "good intentions"'s a product of what happens when Leninist parties approach (or believe they're approaching) the threshold of power.

I am not challenging your sincereity...I'm challenging your methodology.

The Venezuelan Trotskyist party is a party that, in Trotsky's words "knows what it wants to do".

And I am simply pointing out the obvious: that, if successful, "what it wants to do" will result in a party despotism and the emergence of a "Stalin-like" leader.

I repeat: it ain't rocket science.


You don't accuse people of something they haven't done.

I do whenever history strongly suggests that they will do it if they get the chance.

Why not explain how your variety of Leninism-Trotskyism proposes to avoid the fate of all other variants of Leninism in the last century.

For example, does your party renounce in advance all ambitions to "play the leading role" in the "new workers' state"? Do you have a hither-to unsuspected rule that says "no member of the party can be a state official of any kind"?

Don't know if that would really help...but it couldn't do any harm.
First posted at Che-Lives on August 20, 2004


read this old man:

Read it.

Very fine words...ultra-democracy for everybody.

I thought it was interesting that the Trotskyists in Venezuela call themselves the "Revolutionary Marxist Current".

Does that mean that they are not a "vanguard party" or does it mean that they just don't want to call themselves that at this time?

Towards the end of the document appears this statement...


In order to attain this end it is necessary to group together the most advanced sections of the worker and people’s activists and the youth in a Marxist cadre organization that can give to the revolution a clear socialist content.

Read literally, this suggests that they are frantically trying to pull together a vanguard party (that's what "cadre organization" means) while radicalizing the class struggle there all at the same time.

I don't think that weakens any of the points I've made in this thread...but it suggests a longer "time-frame" than your posts have implied.

Is it, in your view, "1905" in Venezuela?
First posted at Che-Lives on August 20, 2004
· Welcome
· Theory
· Guest Book
· Hype
· Additional Reading
· Links

· Contact
Latest Theory Collections
· Communists Against Religion -- Part 19 June 6, 2006
· Conversations with Capitalists May 21, 2006
· Vegetable Morality April 17, 2006
· Parents and Children April 11, 2006
· The Curse of Lenin's Mummy April 3, 2006
Defining Theory Collections
· What Did Marx "Get Wrong"? September 13, 2004
· Class in Post-Revolutionary Society - Part 1 July 9, 2004
· Demarchy and a New Revolutionary Communist Movement November 13, 2003
· A New Type of Communist Organization October 5, 2003
· The "Tools" of Marxism July 19, 2003
· Marxism Without the Crap July 3, 2003
· What is Socialism? An Attempt at a Brief Definition June 19, 2003
· What is Communism? A Brief Definition June 19, 2003
· A New Communist Paradigm for the 21st Century May 8, 2003
· On "Dialectics" -- The Heresy Posts May 8, 2003
Random Quote
"Virtue" is powerless in the face of material incentive.  

Search Internet
Search Website
· There have been 2 users active in the past 15 minutes.

Copyright © 2003-2006 -- Some rights reserved.