HA HA! Take that Chavez!

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber
Do you have a better term? I used it becasue I knew/suspected that you would say that it has to be worldwide to work

I think if you drop the term full it would be acceptable. It would still be a state with a pro-communist regime, no matter how successfull.

My problems are these

1. Past "communist' regimes were not that great ( I know there were/are a ton of horrific capitalist regimes but at least there are a number of existing states that can be held up as 'capitalist' states that are working well

If having a number of states doing well is enough for you then fine, but I'm not satisfied with that. I'm also not satisfied with the state of the world as a whole, and I think that looking at the big picture that capitalism is not working and it's going to get much worse, not better.

2. Your model seems to require that the entire world embrace one ideology. Since that cannot practically happen instantaneously, are you saying that it has to go through years of not working well but as more and more of the world flock to it

There will always be many people who are disgusted by capitalism because they see it as an injustice. Most of these people are in countries where the rich are particularly dispicable. In these countries there will always exist socialism as a political force. But as far as a world system, communism can not exist until the whole world gets on board, and I don't think that can happen until capitalism runs it's course economically.

That should start to happen within the next few decades, but will be a very long process.

3. I am already behind the idea of a more just world for everyone as are many other people. I believe in universal health care, minimum standards of living, education for all, strict environmental standards and have no objection to redistributive policies . I believe in equality of opportunity (to the extent that can be provided) while it seems you believe in "equality of situation" (to the extent THAT can be provided.

Then how can you possibly be against Chavez when he is so popular with his people, because of the rich enemies that they have and the history of the country?

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by Flubber
Its an empty threat. If Venezuela actually refused to sell to the US, there might be a very short term supply hiccup as people scrambled around to re-route a bit of oil. But the bottom line that as large as Venezuelan production is, its not large enough to be a real problem.

Its even emptier than that. Most of Venezualan oil is high sulphur. A high proportion of world refining capacity equiped to deal with a clean high sulphur oil is on the USA Gulf coast. The rest of the world cannot pick up the majority of oil that he threatens to stop sending the USA, the high sulpher refineries are already at 100% capicity, but said USA refineries could easily switch to low sulpher oil.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Agathon
I'd go further and say that it was morally required for the Venezuelan government to renationalize. The whole Washington Consensus has proved to be an idiotic joke foisted on the third world to its detriment. History has demonstrated that the best way to prosperity is to build up your national economy until it is capable of benefiting from free trade. The Asian Tiger economies proved this over and over again, and the Chinese are proving it again right now.

While I agree with your argument, it only works if people accept your terms. Those who hold bourgeois property sacrosanct need a different argument. And some, like Oerdin, will never accept any argument that doesn't have Chavez being stupid or dictatorial or both.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Arrian
General question for Agathon and Che:

Setting aside global communism for a moment, how *should* one do business overseas, given that the majority of the world is governed by undemocratic regimes?

Keep in mind, Arrian, that I really am a communist. I am not terribly concerned if businesses get their fingers burned. In general, however, I do think companies ought to act ethically abroad, not engage in business deals that take advantage of the people just because some corrupt government is giving away the store.

[DinoDoc]

Those who hold bourgeois property sacrosanct need a different argument.

/me wonders if che would report a thief who stole his "property" as he maybe planning a trip to Florida

[Dinner]

Originally posted by onodera

In December he won a massive victory, the biggest ever since the Bolivarian Revolution began. The balance of forces is now weighted very heavily in favour of the Venezuelan masses. Chavez has absolute control of parliament and massive support among the population. The conditions exist for snuffing out capitalism once and for all.

Isn't that what you call democracy?

There is more to democracy then just popularity. There is also the rule of law, a balance of powers, and minority rights. It's not just Venezuela which fails here, Russia is in the same boat.

[chequita guevara]

Flubber,

The Marxists.com reflects a particular viewpoint among a trend of Marxism called Trotskyism. Most of the commies here on Poly are also members of the trend, but not all. One of the faults of this trend is a rather dogmatic and a priori plan on how the revolution is supposed to occur. According to many of my fellow Trots, Chavez isn't a real communist because he isn't expropriating the capitalists willy nilly and even when he does nationalize some of their assets, he compensates them. He also only acts when he has the law on his side. So, for example, he didn't move against RCTV or Globovision, despite both television companies lying about a situation which led to a coup attempt and then supported that coup attempt. I think we could be fairly certain that if such a thing happened in the U.S., those companies would be toast immediately. In Venezuela, Chavez simply waited for their licenses to expire and then didn't renew them. And they are still broadcasting on cable.

My comrades fail to understand the relationship of forces in Venezuela and that the revolution walks on a tightrope. The ruling class and the old middle classes are opposed to Chavez. They claim Chavez wants to be a dictator, but really he would already be if that's what he wanted. What they really fear is that he will take their property and they will lose their power. These are legitimate fears, but so are the fears of criminals who hate the police. That doesn't mean we should pay them any mind.

Those who support Chavez are varied. You have the military, alway a good thing to have on your side when you're trying to remake a society. It was the military that put Chavez back in power after the people mobilized and surrounded the capital against the coup. The peasants like Chavez because he is giving them land. The poor like Chavez because he is providing education and health care and money to improve their neighborhoods. The workers like Chavez because he say he's a socialist, and they are mostly socialist too. In fact, like my Trot brethren, their main complaint is the Chavez is not moving fast enough. Lastly, there is the new middle class, which sees in Chavez a way to shove the old middle classes and ruling class out of the way. Oerdin posted a Guardian article about a year back on this group about this section of Chavistas growing rich off Chavez.

It is this last group which controls the Venezuelan government. Many of Chavez' reforms and the bills in the legislature are getting blocked by this group. They want the revolution to only go just so far. They're all for socialism as long as it is just welfare capitalism. Chavez' constitutional reforms were largely aimed at trying to overcome the block this class has thrown in the way. They were also the group that Chavez relied upon to get out the vote and mobilize the workers and poor and peasants. Guess what they didn't do.

Does this mean that I think Chavez is really a communist? He calls himself a Trotskyist and says that the workers need to read Trotsky. He quotes Lenin and Gramsci. Maybe in his heart he really is a commie. But it is not what men think of themselves that determines what they are. A lot of what is going on in the Bolivarian revolution is maneuvering, trying to outflank opponents. Everyone is trying to get in the best possible position before whatever happens happens.

Maybe Chavez really is just a militant social democrat nationalist. Maybe he's really a revolutionary. But too many of my comrades are too ready to judge simply because he isn't proceeding according to thei preordained formula. That isn't Marxist, it isn't Leninist, and it isn't Trotskyist.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

Those who hold bourgeois property sacrosanct need a different argument.

* DinoDoc wonders if che would report a thief who stole his "property" as he maybe planning a trip to Florida

I would. I live in a bourgeois society and my survival depends on being able to have some of that property so I can pay rent, buy food, and save for retirement. If the United Socialist States of America nationalized my property after a revolution, I'd be a lot less worried about my survival.

Keep in mind the only bourgeois property I hold isn't easily stolen.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
There is more to democracy then just popularity. There is also the rule of law, a balance of powers, and minority rights. It's not just Venezuela which fails here, Russia is in the same boat.

No there isn't. Democracy is an exceedingly simple concept: the rule of the people. No one ever said democracy had to be nice. The rule of law and minority rights are separate, and hopefully characteristics of the particular democracy that is created. Athens certainly had neither.

[Dinner]

I guess Fascist Italy was a democracy then. Mussolini would be pleased with you, Che. Hell, I guess Egypt is a democracy too. I mean they have elections so they must be a democracy, right?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious




Then how can you possibly be against Chavez when he is so popular with his people, because of the rich enemies that they have and the history of the country?

I accept that he is elected and popular and I have no problems with some of what he is doing. I am very skeptical that communism will work well for his peole in the long run . Also

1. I dislike expropriation of things especially from those that do not choose to be part of your system. IN some ways its little different than preventing tourists from leaving until they paid the new $5000 per person departure tax. Its new rules outside what was expected or agreed.

2. The cronyism for high position is apparently reaching new heights. Apparently being pro-Chavez is a precondition for most high posts-- That may be little different than many countries but when the government is taking over lots of industries it becomes more of a key. THis will hurt some of their key industries

3. I am suspicious. His moves have tended to be those planning a long-term personal stay in power. I was encouraged by his referendum defeat but still troubled by the powers he was seeking.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I guess Fascist Italy was a democracy then. Mussolini would be pleased with you, Che. Hell, I guess Egypt is a democracy too. I mean they have elections so they must be a democracy, right?

Sometimes I am forced to agree with the right-wingers assessment of you, Oerdin. I know you aren't stupid, so you must just be unprincipled, and trying to fling mud in order to score "points" when it is obvious you are losing an argument.

Mussolini was appointed, not elected. The Blackshirts marched on Rome and the King appointed Mussolini as Prime Minister in a pseudo-coup. In fact, I don't think the Fascists ever had a majority of support. The Fascists, in fact, were the only fascists ever overthrown by their own people. Neither did the Nazis ever have a majority of support, so let me stop you right there before you embarrass yourself further.

Keep in mind that no where did I mentioned elections. Elections can occur where the people do not rule, and the people can rule where there are no elections. The former is very common and the latter is very difficult and generally only works on a small scale.

[Kuciwalker]

He also only acts when he has the law on his side. So, for example, he didn't move against RCTV or Globovision, despite both television companies lying about a situation which led to a coup attempt and then supported that coup attempt. I think we could be fairly certain that if such a thing happened in the U.S., those companies would be toast immediately.

Uh, no.

[Dinner]

Cronyism will be the death of them. It may take a decade or more like it did with Mugabe but in the end people eventually get sick of it.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Communism contains its own destruction. It is "Goverment and economics by the losers, of the losers, for the losers".