Chavez/Maduro/ Venezuela – heroes or villains?
- This topic has 7 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
To me, Chavez is a hero and has done the best he can to make Venezeula a bastion of Socialism in a capitalist world.
Maduro thankfully is continuing the fight against the right wingers.
How do people here on this forum think about that?
What is the difference between right wing and left wing ? In essence both are wings of the capitalist system, and there is not any relationship between leftism and socialism, and socialism can not be established within the frame of a capitalist society, and it can not be established by a charismatic leader. Socialism can not be established in one country, it must be a wide world system, it was just a wrong conception created by Nikolai Bukharin in Russia Hugo Chavez was fighting against US capitalists in Venezuela and Latin America, but he was not fighting against capitalism itself when he made alliance with others capitalists leaders in Latin America and others parts of the world, such as Russia, and Iran. Socialism has not been established in Venezuela or in Cuba, and he was trying to expand Venezuelan capitalism to others countries. Any capitalist country, large or small is potentially expansionists Certain capitalist reforms were made in Venezuela, but it doesn't mean that socialism was established in the country, those reforms were also performed by Domingo Peron in Argentina, and Velasco in Peru several years before the emerge of Chavez and the so called socialism of the XXI century. Chavismo is also known as Caribbean Peronismo. A similar capitalist nationalist movement was implemented in Argentina, the only difference is that Peron said: No Yankees, and no Communists, (or what used to be known as communism in that time ) or No Yankees and no Soviets, but he was a representative of the nationalist bourgeois class of Argentina, and Chavez represented the nationalist point of view of certain sectors of the nationalist ruling class of Venezuela and other parts of Latin America, such as, Brazil, Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua.He used to call himself an anti-imperialist, but he made alliance with others capitalist powers, and he was pushing for the expansion of Venezuelan capitalism in Latin America and the Caribbean, Petro Caribe it is just the replacement of Shell and Exxon in the Caribbean region, as well the Colombian capitalists were planning to sell electrical services to Puerto Rico by laying cables through the ocean, and the sale of oil to Cuba was also part of their capitalist expansion.He exploited the nationalist and anti-imperialist sentiments of the Latin American peoples in order to implement to nationalist program of the Latin Americans ruling class, the so called national liberation only liberates one ruling class from another ruling classSeveral companies expropriated by the state went into bankruptcy because capitalism can not be operated without producing profits, and that is reason why there is a shortage of certain products in the whole nation, and also it shows the inefficiency of state capitalism, in the same way that state capitalism has been a failure in Cuba and new ruling class has been forced to "privatize" certain sectors of the economy. In Venezuela oil is still under the control of private capitalists, and the state was only able to expropriate a small percentage. The founders of Socialism of the XXI Century which is a German university teacher living in Mexico has distanced himself from Hugo Chavez and Venezuela, because he has considered that whatever has been implemented in that country has nothing to do with the type of socialism that he wanted to be applied in Latin America, although most of his so called socialist principles, it is just Leninism applied to the economical reality of Latin America, which is state capitalism.The main struggle is the fight of what the left wingers called neo-liberalism which is just the opposite of state capitalism because in reality neo-liberalism does not in the world, it is an economical phantom created by the leftists, liberalism doesn't even existed in France and England during the XVIII century because the state has always being a participant in the capitalist economy, the main purpose of the so called anti-neoliberal is to implement more state regulation and the expropriation of certain sectors of the economy in order to be run by the state, it is the same thing done in Russia, and the same type of programs implemented by Roosevelt in the US and Trujillo in the Dominican Republic, he was also a proto-Leninist Hugo Chavez called himself a socialist and he did not know anything about socialism, he was shouting nationalist slogans, and repeating many slogans that Fidel Castro also has said during the 1959, and 1960, and then he became a puppet of the Soviet leadership, and before that, Castro has said that he was not a communist, that he was a nationalist liberal, and that he had only read a few pages of the writings of Marx. The only thing that Fidel Castro did in Cuba was to implement soviet state capitalism in that nation Maduro who was appointed by Chavez, and he used Chavez popularity in order to win the election; he is just trying to continue his economical and political legacy, and blaming all the failures on the right wingers, or in the other sector of the Venezuelan capitalist class. It is just an struggle among several capitalist powers trying to take over the country and run it in order to produce profits for themselves, but it is not the struggle in order to establish a new society of common possession which can not be established in one country either.
Correction, I meant to say: Socialism can not be established in one country
well wouldn't you rather have Maduro, than right wing Catholic , US puppet Capriles running the show?
This has reminded me of a statement handed out by the Scargill Labour Party (SLP) at a meeting on 21 April 2006 during the borough elections in Kingston of that year (which we also contested).
Quote:Racism has sprung out of the hegemony of imperialist society in the Twentieth Century with its large migrations of workers to the metropolitan countries. A socialist immigration policy is required to break this cycle and one that mirrors socialist Cuba. In Cuba nobody is allowed in and nobody is allowed out.Sounds like the sort of policy you seem to be arguing for, wiscalatus.
Didn't I say that right wing and leftwing are both wings of capitalism ?
wiscalatus wrote:well wouldn't you rather have Maduro, than right wing Catholic , US puppet Capriles running the show?Next you'll be saying that the Soviet Union was paradise on earth because they had low unemployment. Was Saddam Hussein better than the US led occupation because Iraq had good health care? Or Cuba under Castro? Where does this lesser evilism stop?The point remains if any capitalist reforms have some slight advantage to the working class it is merely an incidental by-product of a measure designed to strengthen and maintain capitalism. The advantages to the capitalist class far outweigh any to the working class.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.