Define "democratic socialism"

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by snoopy369
I think Chavez just isn't very good at being a dictator (Or he's smart enough to see that he needs to have the appearance of democracy when it's not important... We'll see if he really leaves after his term is over or if this vote comes back up again and passes...)

I am fairly certain that many of those reforms will come up again, probably during a national election. I'm not opposed to ending term limits per se, but in countries that have weak democratic traditions, term limits is a somewhat limited step in order to keep out dictators, and really a good one at that. One merely needs look at Russia to see that. The only reason we have term limits is that the GOP didn't want to see anyone like Roosevelt sit in the White House that long again. They were all ready to dump it when Reagan's 2nd term was coming to an end.

Given that Chavez has strictly adhered to the Constitution of Venezuela, and that his opponents are proven enemies of the democratic process, it's rather hard to label him as a dictator. Maybe a wanna be dictator, but it's not because he wants the power. He identifies the revolution so strongly with his own person that he doesn't think anyone else can carry out the task of seeing it to its conclusion. And that's how you get people like Castro, who started out trying to create a democratic state, ending up as dictators.

My sense is that Chavez saw the reforms which concentrated power in the hands of the President as a way to go around the entrenched bureaucracy, which is corrupt and trying to strangle the revolution. He does not yet trust enough in the masses to let them take power for themselves. The workers are chomping at the bit to seize control of their work spaces, but Chavez holds them back. At this point, Chavez is holding back the revolution, but I think it's because he feels that their position isn't strong enough to win without a civil war. This is a very dangerous place to be, as it is precisely the social condition out of which fascism arises. Not simply a military coup and police state, but real fascism which grinds the working masses under it's iron heel (to pinch a phrase from Jack London).

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by snoopy369


Go read a few books by Iain M. Banks ("Consider Phlebas", "The Use of Weapons" to start with) and come back...

Money is only necessary in an economy of scarcity. In a non-scarcity economy it is relatively useless... sadly we're nowhere near that

If fairies existed then I guess it could be true that fairies wear boots, but neither one is true.

[snoopy369]

A non-scarcity economy is not a fantasy, however. It's not particularly likely in the near or mid-term future, but from a practical point of view there are quite realistic scenarios where our economy becomes non-scarcity based in the future (at least for day to day things). Start mining asteroids and you can have a pretty unlimited source of most metals, as well as some organics from Carbonaceous asteroids...

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by snoopy369
A non-scarcity economy is not a fantasy, however. It's not particularly likely in the near or mid-term future, but from a practical point of view there are quite realistic scenarios where our economy becomes non-scarcity based in the future (at least for day to day things). Start mining asteroids and you can have a pretty unlimited source of most metals, as well as some organics from Carbonaceous asteroids...

Well that's not what Marx was talking about. He wasn't a science fiction writer. Scarcity is the trend. More and more scarcity.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Maybe a wanna be dictator, but it's not because he wants the power. He identifies the revolution so strongly with his own person that he doesn't think anyone else can carry out the task of seeing it to its conclusion. And that's how you get people like Castro, who started out trying to create a democratic state, ending up as dictators.

As far as being an apologist goes, you take the take! Oh no, it wasn't because he wanted power... it's because he LOVED the people too much that he could leave the work undone!!

[BeBMan]

Re: Re: Define "democratic socialism"

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
The parties you named certainly don't stand for it. The Left may be a bit more than the SPD, but overall both are very pragmatic and forget their principles, once in power. So don't judge them by their programs.

Certainly not. Like any other party.

Otoh a real pragmatism I'd rather find nice in politics (in the way I understand it: rather as a non-ideological drive towards pragmatic solutions).

[lord of the mark]

Re: Re: Define "democratic socialism"

Originally posted by chegitz guevara and the Geman Social Democatic Party are the murderers of Luxemburg and Leibnicht

That I dont take the time now to answer this, does not mean I accept this charecterization of the events in question.

I would simply point out, though, that while NO major party in Germany today calls itself Communist, the SPD proudly retains the same name it has had for generations. In general thats true of western European SD parties, which in fact cling to those names even when they drift toward 3rd wayism, like the UK Labour Party. Indeed in the UK communists (esp Trotskyites) hid under the banner of that old Fabian organization. Whereas virtually every major Western European Communist party has changed its name. So Im really not sure that "Social Democrat" and "Communist" carry equally negative connotations.

Again, my own impression is that Democratic Socialist has been adopted not so much to avoid identification with the SD's of the 1920's, but to avoid identification with the centrist economic policies associated with many SD parties in the post-war era.

[lord of the mark]

"that his opponents are proven enemies of the democratic process, it's rather hard to label him as a dictator."


just to note, some of his opponents now include former supporters.

for the rest :

" Maybe a wanna be dictator, but it's not because he wants the power. He identifies the nation so strongly with his own person that he doesn't think anyone else can carry out the task of maintaining its safety and stability. And that's how you get people like Fujimori, who started out trying to maintain a democratic state, ending up as dictators."

[chequita guevara]

Nice try, but Fujimori didn't identify a social process in Peru with himself. He was well aware he was superfluous. He just didn't want democracy getting in the way of him doing what he felt he had to do, i.e., smash the peasantry and workers and get them to accept the neo-liberal agenda.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Maybe a wanna be dictator, but it's not because he wants the power. He identifies the revolution so strongly with his own person that he doesn't think anyone else can carry out the task of seeing it to its conclusion. And that's how you get people like Castro, who started out trying to create a democratic state, ending up as dictators.

As far as being an apologist goes, you take the take! Oh no, it wasn't because he wanted power... it's because he LOVED the people too much that he could leave the work undone!!

That's not what I'm saying at all, and I was quite clear. He has a mission and he doesn't think anyone else can carry it out. Rather than "loving the people too much" he doesn't trust them enough to do it themselves. He loves the people in the abstract, as can be seen by his twenty five years of efforts on their behalf. But he doesn't understand "the people" as an organic, subjective entity that can act for itself. It may need leadership, but it must make socialism in Venezuela, not Chavez.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
That's not what I'm saying at all, and I was quite clear. He has a mission and he doesn't think anyone else can carry it out. Rather than "loving the people too much" he doesn't trust them enough to do it themselves. He loves the people in the abstract, as can be seen by his twenty five years of efforts on their behalf. But he doesn't understand "the people" as an organic, subjective entity that can act for itself. It may need leadership, but it must make socialism in Venezuela, not Chavez.

Yes it is (what you are saying at all). And you are right, it's quite clear, even if you try to explain it all away. I love the whole "he loves the people in the abstract" garbage. He's after pure, naked power. No less.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Nice try, but Fujimori didn't identify a social process in Peru with himself. He was well aware he was superfluous. He just didn't want democracy getting in the way of him doing what he felt he had to do, i.e., smash the peasantry and workers and get them to accept the neo-liberal agenda.

Hey, Fujimori had a mission to, in his opinion, make his country better! He just didn't think anyone else could carry it out.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Yes it is (what you are saying at all). And you are right, it's quite clear, even if you try to explain it all away. I love the whole "he loves the people in the abstract" garbage. He's after pure, naked power. No less.

It's subject to endless debate, but you're definitely going too far if you claim that Chavez doesn't honestly believe in socialism.

[Imran Siddiqui]

He belief system and his motivations do not necessarily have to be the same.

I'm positive that Mussolini believed in Fascism as an ideology, but that doesn't mean that most of what he did in the name of Fascism wasn't to get power.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


That's not what I'm saying at all, and I was quite clear. He has a mission and he doesn't think anyone else can carry it out. Rather than "loving the people too much" he doesn't trust them enough to do it themselves. He loves the people in the abstract, as can be seen by his twenty five years of efforts on their behalf. But he doesn't understand "the people" as an organic, subjective entity that can act for itself. It may need leadership, but it must make socialism in Venezuela, not Chavez.

This is so true. The people often doesn't know what they want and how they get it. Fortunatedly, there exists singularities that has the currage to endure jail when the evil opressors persecutes them - even are able to write books that clarifies how they will do ther uttermost for these bewildered sheeps once they get the power to save the people.