quote:

---

President Hugo Chavez, who has repeatedly spoken of various plots on his life, said Saturday a sniper with a long-range gun and a motorcycle to escape on had planned to shoot him as he exited a helicopter on a recent trip to western Venezuela.

The incident allegedly occurred when Chavez visited the western oil-producing region of Zulia in June to inaugurate a refurbished fertilizer plant.

Chavez has made other claims of assassination plots in the past, including a case involving 27 Colombians and three former Venezuelan military officers who were convicted last October by a military court for allegedly plotting to kill him.

His government also demanded that Bogota investigate allegations that surfaced in an influential Colombian magazine in April saying the country's secret police plotted to assassinate Chavez and other top Venezuelan officials. Colombian President Alvaro Uribe has denied the allegations.

---

Assassination Attempt Foiled

Fortunately these have all failed, Many of the attempts were with the US colony of Colombia's assistance. Pat Robertson even prayed that his god and the US would "take him out".

The reporter Greg Palast has closely followed Chavez and has been saying for some time the US is openly planning to remove Chavez.

ETA: Although I don't agree with everything Palast says he's the only major TV American journalist who regularly reports favourably about Chavez.

The only problem is the bulk of his work isn't seen in the US or Canada but the BBC in the UK.

Here's one report that describes the changes in Venezuela under Chavez:

Palast on Chavez

[ 27 March 2007: Message edited by: a lonely worker ]

Come to think of it, why hasn't the U.S. "won" its war in Iraq? Afghanistan? Why is it still embroiled in the Korean peninsula 55 years later? Why did it "lose" Viet Nam, Cambodia, Laos? When was the last time it "won" a war, in fact? Why couldn't it protect its puppets like Marcos, Pinochet, the Shah, etc. etc.?

The Bay of Pigs was 55 45 years ago this year - and Cuba is still there - eight presidents later!!

Hey, I know - maybe the U.S. isn't all-powerful! Maybe they are actually incapable of doing anything except sinking deeper and deeper in the morass, threatening and flailing and blustering all the way! Maybe no one with any shred of self-esteem is actually scared of them any more!

They tried a coup to overthrow Chavez. It worked - for almost a whole weekend - until the people rose up and crushed the plotters and reinstated their hero. They cannot kill Chavez. They haven't got enough kryptonite.

ETA: Corrected an error.

[ 27 March 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

Latin America's militaries have received financial aid and other support from Warshington and Pentagon for many years. All it takes is to corrupt one or two high ranking people and democracy hangs in the balance. Rumsfeld announced increased aid for Latin America's militaries several months ago. I think Washington is become a bit concerned over the fact that U.S. capital is no longer dominant in South American economies since China and other countries became invested there.

Mikhail Gorbachev: "History is Not Preordained: A New Cold War Can Be Averted"

[ 27 March 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Why haven't they killed Castro? Kim Jong-Il? Ahmadinejad? Osama Bin Laden? Al Gore? Ralph Nader? Nasrallah? Mullah Omar? Jack Layton?

---

quote:

---

The Bay of Pigs was 45 years ago this year - and Cuba is still there - eight presidents later!!

---

Our family just came back from the Bay of Pigs. It was our first visit to the bay. It's a beautiful area and well worth the visit. Much of the area is in a national park and it really is the most unspoilt part of Cuba we've ever visited. When you're driving past Guamma there's a massive sign saying you're entering the area where "North American imperialism met it's first defeat in Latin America". There's a great museum and big markers where all the Cubans died in the attack. The road into Playa Larga and Playa Giron is an experience one won't forget.

Since then it's safe to say the reversal of the CIA coup against Chavez has to be recoreded as the first time a US (with quiet Canadian support) coup in Latin America was reversed.

As for why the US treads softly at this time, I believe the Iraq situation has them a bit pre-occupied and with Chavez still having rock solid support, they're very worried about his threats to cut the US off from their oil if they try any tricks again.

In the report I linked this subject is discussed toward the end. It's definitely worth a watch especially for those unfamilliar with the changes occurring in Venezuela:

Palast on Chavez

The US are now trying to isolate Chavez and are trying to find divisions within the region. So far they're failing but now our poodle Steve is being dispatched to Latin America to be the Blair of the Western Hemisphere. Most disgustingly of all he's going to use our medicare as an example of how it's possible to be a "progressive" capitalist.

Here's some info on this planned trip:

PM plans Latin American tour to promote Canada as key ally

Funny how this "different" imperialist is ignoring all the countries not friendly with the US.

[ 27 March 2007: Message edited by: a lonely worker ]

His bad polocies of half measured socialism will do all the work for them...

These policies will do nothing for the workers of Venazuala. In fact it will make things worse... and in the end you will have a right winged party take over...

Latin American socialism is a very different animal from it's European cousins. Cuba was the first nation during it's "special period" to start experimenting with alternatives. Many of these have been successful and are producing improvements whilst maintaining their excellent social programmes.

There is no one size fits all despite what the Washington consensus says. Nations like Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba and others are proving that working locally at the grassroots produces far more results than the top down structures of the past.

Venezuela is actually the furthest ahead on this project as it is openly discussing a return to the ruling structure of the Paris Communes. How successful this communalism does is something well worth watching.

ETA: Chavez is also increasing the amount of "collective property" another capitalist invention according to trippie(?):

Chavez: Venezuela Heading for Socialism

[ 27 March 2007: Message edited by: a lonely worker ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Actually a franchised chain of them.

---

F.example he calls the movement a"Bolivarian revolution"
So his policies would be somewhat distinct from the mainstream socialism. Still, he's doing a good job, by the looks of it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Coyote:

But all lined up right beside each other in direct competition.

---

In the name of socialist unity, of course.

[ 27 March 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Why hasn't the CIA killed Hugo Chavez?

---

Because killing him would serve no purpose. It would just make him a martyr in the eyes of the huge majority of Venezuelans who, to one degree or another, already support him, and would further damage what's left of the reputation of the US government/Corporate America tyranny.

Eva Gollinger has been writing extensively about the US' role in the attempted coup and on Venezuela in general.

This interview has just been published and is a very good blueprint about US attempts against Chavez. First financial, the coup, propoganda, political pressure, dividing allies,etc. They're now moving into a very dangerous phase:

quote:

---

It is also reasonable to be concerned about the possibility of a military intervention in Venezuela, said

Gollinger. She said the U.S. has been building up its military presence around Venezuela over the past year and a half and that for the first time since the Cold War, military exercises were conducted last year by U.S. forces in the region. She said four simultaneous exercises took place off the coast of Venezuela.

Gollinger said the U.S. was hostile to Venezuela because it is a major supplier of U.S. oil, it has an "integration-cooperation" model of foreign policy that chips away at U.S. dominance in the region and it has a "participatory, revolutionary, socialist" model of democracy that places a priority of people before economic interests.

She said this model is a direct threat to capitalism.

---

U.S. aims to undermine Venezuela, author says

[ 27 March 2007: Message edited by: a lonely worker ]

quote:

---

You guys are so bad - you've made me go look up 4th International.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BetterRed:
Chavez follows a school of thought where a brand of socialism is specific to the country.

---

I don't even think its relevant if he believes in socialism in one country or in all countries. I doubt he thinks like that at all. I think he thinks more about what the immidiate solutions are to the immediate problems which he faces in governement, from a socialit perspective.

BTW, what was Marx's position of the "Socialism in one country" vs. "world socialism" debate. I am racking my brains but can't think of anything were he expounded on this point.

These are serious matters..

There is not difference between what Europe or Latin amerca is doing when it comes to Socialist thought.

YOu people have not learned your political leasons.

They are both trying to appease the bourgeoisie and maintain the class structures of the capitalist system....

Chavez and Fidel are practitioners of Nationalistic Socialism... This does not work... it does not help the workers and always fails...

It is a form of Socialsim in one country... The same reasoning that Stalin used for his Socialism in one country.

Their form of appeasement of the capitalist is the same thought pattern that the NDP used in Ontario under Bob Rae..

In the end you can not appease the Capitalists...Becasue capitalism does not work...period.... it can not be rescued ....

Chavez has left the bankers intacked in his country, he has alianated his workers from the workers in the USA.. He has built up his mililarty with the latest weaponry from Russia.... How does any of this increase the welfare of the workers...

Inflation in Venezuala in rising..

Also if you look at Cuba. Can you actual say that the workers there are living a higher form of living then the rest of the world or can you say it is worse... What about the democratic situaltion in both of those countries.... Fidel has been around for ever and Hugo is making himself the king...

the whole reasoning of Socialism is that it is one step higher then the most advanced form of Capitalism... In those two countries is this true? Will this come about?

Of you look at Ontario and watched the appeasement polocies of the NDP government you will see that it lead to nothing but the advancement of Mike Harris and ten years of reactionary backwardness....

The same thing will happen for Hugo and Fidel...

again you can not reform Capitalism and the polocies of nationalistic socialism in its social democracy format is a loosing game....

[ 27 March 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by trippie:

Their form of appeasement of the capitalist is the same thought pattern that the NDP used in Ontario under Bob Rae..

---

Hugo forgot to nationalize auto insurance? Fidel did Rae Days? I'm losing you here...

quote:

---

Fidel has been around for ever and Hugo is making himself the king...

---

You even talk like George W. Bush. What is your problem? That 4th International Foodfest gave you indigestion?

By the way, you quoted an article once that the capitalists had built the unions in Canada after WWII. When I called your article bad names, you said you emailed the author for an explanation. I'm still waiting...

quote:

---

Why did the Marxist leader (I think Petkoff is the name), broke ranks with Chavez and opposed him during last campaign?

---

Because like trippie's comments, Chavez isn't a true "communist" so he is now working with the US paid capitalists and "progressives" to overthrow Chavez.
Teodoro Petkoff is a classic neo-lib tool.

You raise a very valid point about all nations finding their own path. Here's an interview with Bolivia's Vice President on this issue:

An interview with Vice President Álvaro García Linera of the Movement Toward Socialism Party (MAS).

quote:

---

There has been talk of "a new Latin American socialism." If this exists, how would you define it? Is Bolivia part of it?

We debate this amongst ourselves, and we haven't defined a position. If you will allow me a very personal view on this issue, what is happening in Latin America today is a search for diverse paths to post neo-liberalism. The experience of Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Venezuela, and Ecuador, mainly, and Uruguay in its own way, is a search for a road to post- neo-liberalism, of ways to disassemble the processes of financial colonization and public resource privatization of the 1980s and 90s. But where is socialism? I think it's part of a horizon, of a future that you have to start building now. Fortunately, it's no longer possible to associate socialism with the statism that characterized the [former] USSR for almost 70 years. The debate of socialism as statism has been tossed aside, and today the debate is about defining socialism, socialism understood as a post-capitalist society, and not just a post neoliberal one like what we have today. I think we are just seeing the beginnings of this.

There is no single model for socialism; every country has to find its own internal post-capitalist forces. In Bolivia, I think post-capitalism will be grounded in the medium or long run in two forces: in the force of modern industry and in the nonmodern, communal tradition. For Bolivia, and perhaps Peru, perhaps Ecuador, perhaps Guatemala, it's unimaginable to envision postcapitalism without taking into account the communal strength of the indigenous communities. This is what makes us different from other parts of the world.

---

once Lenin realized what he was saying he understood what had to be done.

It was Trotski that said sociailism in one country does not work...

It was Stalin tath said socialism in one country will work...

Socialism in one country is a reaction from of thought....

YOu can not have socialism in one country just like you can not have capitalism on one counrty...

When Trotski was 25 years of age he realized that the world was already connected... Capital was flowing back and forth around the world...

In the 1980 when capitalism was taking a dive... the capitalist came up with and advanced capital Globalisation... They did this to save capitalism by creating more profits.

Trotski understood that you can not have socialiosm in one country for the same reasons....

The one main problem of capitalism is the fact that countries compete against each other....

You can't have socialist countries competing agianst each other and you can't have socialism in one counrty for the same reason...

you can't have the workers form one country competing against another... taths capitalism and it does not work

They need to work together... workers need to be able to go were the work is... and the earths resources must be used for the benefit of all mankind not just one or two locations...

[ 27 March 2007: Message edited by: trippie ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Yes, but Trippie, please point to me where it is in Marx that he condemns localized attempts at socialism, outside of a world framework? There may be some critique of the problems inherent in that project, but I don't think he condemns them out of hand as appeasment or "destractions" from the overall project he envisioned.

---

Hurray for Google! It's not Marx, but it's close - look what I found in "The Principles of Communism" by Friedrich Engels (never actually heard of this before... did you?):

quote:

---

Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone?

No. By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the Earth, and especially the civilized peoples, into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others.

Further, it has co-ordinated the social development of the civilized countries to such an extent that, in all of them, bourgeoisie and proletariat have become the decisive classes, and the struggle between them the great struggle of the day. It follows that the communist revolution will not merely be a national phenomenon but must take place simultaneously in all civilized countries – that is to say, at least in England, America, France, and Germany.

It will develop in each of the these countries more or less rapidly, according as one country or the other has a more developed industry, greater wealth, a more significant mass of productive forces. Hence, it will go slowest and will meet most obstacles in Germany, most rapidly and with the fewest difficulties in England. It will have a powerful impact on the other countries of the world, and will radically alter the course of development which they have followed up to now, while greatly stepping up its pace.

It is a universal revolution and will, accordingly, have a universal range.

---

ETA: I don't particularly care who said what (Marx, etc.), nor do I have an opinion on this subject matter. I'm just trying to disrupt trippie and cueball's scriptural battle. I hope I haven't unwittingly given trippie ammunition ... though God knows, he needs it!

[ 27 March 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Yes, but Trippie, please point to me where it is in Marx that he condemns localized attempts at socialism, outside of a world framework? There may be some critique of the problems inherent in that project, but I don't think he condemns them out of hand as "destractions" from the overall project he envisioned.

---

Cueball shoots! HE SCORES! It's true that Marx, Engels and other socialist economists of the mid and late 19th Century were inspired by and very appreciative of the practical democratic socialist efforts of their time and previously.

From the Communist Manifesto to the Critique of Political economy there are dozens of references to the cooperative movements and guild/early union efforts to set up communes (self-governing democratic townships with self-sustaining economies--where the term "communism" comes from) and similar democratic sustainable business.

The Owenite Home Colony movements, Chartists, Fourier's Phalanx efforts, the St. Simonians, Quakers, Icarians, early Knights of Labour in the US, Gleaners, Diggers, guild co-ops, etc., clearly gave early Marxists and anarchists, as well as social democrats and many trade unionists, the confidence to advocate and organized the way they did.

And, despite still today falling far short of the ultimate goal, those efforts have paid off with huge social reforms that have contributed to an historic rise in living standards, freedom and political and social awareness across the globe, especially in the industrialized societies.

[ 27 March 2007: Message edited by: Steppenwolf Allende ]

the arguement was between Trotski and Stalin... you can read above as to what the arguement was...

And you can look at Russia today to find out who was right....

If you can't figure it out then let me make it obvious

Stalin was wrong.....

Socialism in one country is a reactionary form of thought..

Stalin was reaction to the internal and external pressures ... that is why he came up with socialism inone country.....

Ok children,

What is your political leasson of the day..???

If Hugo was really interested in making things better for the workers of his country he would eliminate the reasons to the disparagy in this country....

What are those reasons...

Read marx to find out.

He would also look into histroy to find out what has workered and what has not...

he would find out the proper forms of thinking....

quote:

---

Originally posted by trippie:
It was Trotski that came up jwith the "permanent revolution".

---

Thank You. So in fact it isn't a Marxist idea. Its an idea from a school of thought that claims it represents Marxist ideas, when it does not because in fact, at no time did Marx ever suggest that localized socialist projects, or movements towards socialism were appeasement of capitalism, or a distraction from the socialist project.

In fact he argued the opposite. He argued that socialism, and all human social evolution was progressive, and born of capitalist mode of organization by neccessity:

quote:

---

What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges.

---

Critique of the Gotha Programme

This very idea predicts the evolution of quasi-capitalist modes of production as an essential part of the progressive movement toward a communist society, through stages.

Trosky's view of "permanent revolution" is an absolutist view, that is completely antithetical to Marx, and his mode of thinking. Even a cursory review of Marx shows that he didn't believe anything to be "permanent," but believed rather in a view of history that was "progressive."

[ 27 March 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

The ALBA fundamentally and explicitly rejects many of the principles embodied in neoliberal free trade agreements. Instead, it strives to practice principles of cooperation and resource transfer, as well as supporting cooperative, family, and small-scale producers. A good example of this vision in practice are the results of the initial Cuba-Venezuela TCP, which was signed on December 14, 2004 by Presidents Hugo Chávez and Fidel Castro. The agreement was aimed at the exchange of medical resources and petroleum between both nations. Venezuela delivers about 96,000 barrels of oil per day from its state-owned petroleum operations to Cuba at very favorable prices and Cuba in exchange sent 20,000 state-employed medical staff and thousands of teachers to Venezuela's slums.

President Evo Morales of poor but gas-rich Bolivia joined the TCP on April 29, 2006, only days before he announced his intention to nationalize Bolivia's hydrocarbon assets. Newly elected President Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua, signed the agreement in January 2007; Venezuela agreed to forgive Nicaragua's $31 million debt as a result. On February 23, 2007 Ortega visited Caracas to solidify Nicaragua's participation in ALBA.[1] One week prior, three Caribbean states, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Dominica, and Antigua and Barbuda, also joined ALBA.[2] Rafael Correa, the president-elect of Ecuador, signed a joint agreement with Hugo Chávez, to become a member of ALBA once he becomes president.[3]

---

ALBA

Correa did win the election and Ecuador is very close to joining as well. This is what "Fair" Trade should look like and embodies the co-operation and internationalism of previous times.

This agreement more than any other is what has the northern capitalists shaking in their Guccis.

[ 27 March 2007: Message edited by: a lonely worker ]

the theories that brought humanity closest to a socialist utopia was the ones used by the Bolshevic party in Russia...

Using thier theories they managed to desimated the bourgeoisie of taht country and become the first workers state...

It is up to us to find out what went wrong....

The leaders of Latin America are rejecting the state capitalism of Europe and are setting up their own brand of co-operative socialism. There is no competition between the nations. The ALBA agreement is one based on the principle of co-operation and NOT competition. For example Venezuela sends oil (something they have a lot of) for Cuban Doctors (something they have a lot of).

This movement is spreading and ALBA is the fastest growing trade agreement in the world.

[ 27 March 2007: Message edited by: a lonely worker ]

To please you. lets call it the "progressive revolution"

Whats the difference......

The revolution can not stop in one country....

The revolution must be permanent...

it must progress into every country...

It must be permanent because iot must progress from bourgeois democricies into socialist ones..

it must be permanent because it must progress from capitalist forms of society into socialist ones.

it must be permanent because it must progress form socialism into communism..

it must be permanent because it must progress from communism into higher forms of thought and societies.....

When Trotski was in his 20's coming up with his theories using marxist analyis he was looking at world situation of the time. He was the product of his environment...

He realized that the revolution could not end in one country... so he came up with the permanent revolution...

He knew it would not work if it stopped... the world was connected and Russia needed the help from other countries..

Just like Marx thought that the revolution would start in France, continue in Germany and then be finished by the British... so to did Trotski realize the need for it to continue forward...

quote:

---

The revolution can not stop in one country....

The revolution must be permanent...

it must progress into every country...

---

Like Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Argentina, Nicaragua, Ecuador, etc.

It's happening in Latin America right now.

But what you try to do is distort what he stood for...

Colectivisation ....yes...

reactionary overtaking of the kulaks sending everyone into a tailspind resulting in the downward pressure on agriculture and the starvation of the populious ... He did not stand for that..

don't be so misleading...

Im not...

quote:

---

Originally posted by trippie:

reactionary overtaking of the kulaks sending everyone into a tailspind resulting in the downward pressure on agriculture and the starvation of the populious ... He did not stand for that..

---

Oh and you actually believe that CPSU wanted mass starvation, just to be mean, I suppose.

There is no evidence for that.

What there is evidence for is that the policy which Tortsky advised, and Stalin instituted, with Trotsky's unsolicited support, was that it was a stupid policy, and that both Trotsky and Stalin were stupid people with a tendency toward advocating highly idealized absolutist social policies.

But why then (and here is the kicker) does Trotsky support the collectivization program, even after his exile, if this is not tacit acceptance that in the real world, social evolution takes place at different rates of speed in different places, so that it is possible to insititute what Trotsky thought was a progressive social program (in the form of collectivzation in Russia alone,) even if there were not revolutionary governements world wide?

Trotsky doesn't even support his own theory, in practice.

[ 27 March 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

This shit happens all the timeover there....

Do you know why it does not work???

Whats are your reasons????

You may wish for things to be getting better over there but they are not...

What is happening over there?

What is the crime rates? What is the inflasion rates?

Are the capitalist getting stronger in the wings?

How come bankes are making such huge profits in Venazuala ?

Why the need to build up the military?

Ya its great that those counrties are starting to work together.... but under what ideology?

Are they going to unite under one big banner?

How will this come about if they are not thinking properly or do not have the right leadership?

From historicl evedence... the type of thinking going on by those leaders .. the type that leaves the capitalists intacked .... is disfunctinal....

quote:

---

the theories that brought humanity closest to a socialist utopia was the ones used by the Bolshevic party in Russia...

Using thier theories they managed to desimated the bourgeoisie of taht country and become the first workers state...

---

Right, sure. That's why post-revolutionary Russia was built on this:

Lenin: Industrial Management under a State Capitalist Monopoly Framework

Lenin and Bukharin on the Transition from Capitalism to Socialism

Lenin on State Capitalism During the Transition to Socialism excerpts

The fact is even your heroes acknowledge that the working class in Russia was hardly organized, educated or socially conscious enough to democratize the economy. Therefore, there would be no "workers' state" since the capitalist modes of production couldn't be eliminated, but only modified in various ways—and that is exactly what led to the rise of Stalin & Co.

quote:

---

One major fault was the reactionary theory of socialism in one country....

---

Actually, “socialism in one country” isn’t even a legitimate theory—reactionary or otherwise. Rather, it’s a shallow con job dreamed up by a despotic con artist and his corporate allies who were re-consolidating the Bolsheviks’ state capitalist prescriptions, supposedly intended to be temporary transitional measures, and making them into a permanent economic template for an expansionist competitive world power. While Stalin’s PR boys insisted publicly that socialism was “firmly established” they in fact admitted they were building this:

Stalin: State Capitalism to Close the Historic Gap Between Russia and the West

And this:

The Nomenclatura: Soviet-era Capitalism

So it seems even a dumb ass like me has somewhat more factual knowledge and understanding of these matters than yourself. Dontcha think?

[ 27 March 2007: Message edited by: Steppenwolf Allende ]

You also mention the need for co-operation and internationalism.

Here's another article on this:

quote:

---

“In my country, a surgery like that costs [US]$8,000”, said Roberto Andrade from El Salvador about the operation he received in Cuba that removed cataracts from both his eyes, completely free of charge, according to a January 10 Miami Herald article. “I make $12 a day. I would never, ever, be able to save that much.”

Andrade’s operation was part of Mission Miracle, the joint Venezuelan-Cuban program whereby Venezuela provides the funds for poor people across the continent in need of eye operations to fly to Cuba, which has the facilities to carry out the treatment. According to the Miami Herald, more than 300,000 Venezuelans have had their eyesight restored by the program so far, as well as more than 100,000 citizens of 28 other countries.

Mission Miracle is just one of the ways that Venezuela, in alliance with socialist Cuba, is internationalising the gains of the pro-poor revolution that the government of socialist President Hugo Chavez is leading inside Venezuela. As part of its push for Latin American integration to challenge US domination of the region, Venezuela has initiated the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA). Aiming to help overcome the underdevelopment and poverty that much of Latin America has been condemned to, ALBA promotes trade based on cooperation and solidarity, rather than competition.

---

Venezuela spreads international solidarity

This is what TRUE internationalism and socialism should look like (not the Teodor Petkoff or Christopher Hutcheons "pure" versions they blather about when having coup discussions with with their neo-lib friends).

quote:

---

How many times does Latin american move back and forth between capitalism and socialism...??

This shit happens all the timeover there....

Do you know why it does not work???

Whats are your reasons????

---

Ever heard of a nation called the USA and an organisation called the CIA? They had a great programme called Operation Condor where hundreds of thousands died.

The US has invaded virtually every country in Latin America. No one can survive that pressure. Cuba's survival has been miraculous.

I'm not saying any body waanted any one to stave...

What Im saying is that the left ooposition told the Stalinisnt to do sertian things at asertian tempo....

the Stalinists thought other wise.... but in the end came to the same conclusions...

But it always came from areactinary thought pattern...

my equation is that Hugo Cahvez and all the Nationalistic Socialists or Democratic Socialists all come to thier conclusions form the same reactionary point of view....

Just because Hugo Chavez came form an honest starting point does not mean that his line of thinking is good....

Stalin did not start out as a murderous thug... his bad thinking turned him into a reactionary thus leading him to become a murderer...

quote:

---

Originally posted by trippie:
look dude you're just blow hot air up my ass...

I'm not saying any body waanted any one to stave...

What Im saying is that the left ooposition told the Stalinisnt to do sertian things at asertian tempo....

the Stalinists thought other wise.... but in the end came to the same conclusions...

---

Yes Trotsky wanted to start the bad policy right away. And you haven't responded to this:

But why then (and here is the kicker) does Trotsky support the collectivization program, even after his exile, if this is not tacit acceptance that in the real world, social evolution can take place at different rates of speed in different places, so that it is possible to insititute what Trotsky thought was a progressive social program (in the form of collectivzation in Russia alone,) even if there were not revolutionary governements world wide?

Trotsky doesn't even support his own theory, in practice.

[ 27 March 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

So you have to have the right thinking to combat this pressure...

You must have the proper perspective to over come it..

It was the Stalinists taht thought letting the kulaks gain so much power was a good thing....

It was the kulaks that wanted to bring back capitalist forms of trade for thier own benefit...

It was either the kulaks gaining control of the farms for thier own benefit or it was the workers gaining control...

He still believed that things could be reformed in Russia ..

Your the one bringing up this wild theory that Trotski did not understand that Socialism is on different leaves in different places....

Hence "permanet revolution"

The very meaning of this is that the revolution is at different leaves in different places...

look dude ... Im no trotski expert... I read the shit he says and then put it up against what I already know... and 9 times out of 10 he was correct in his analysis...

he told the Stalinists tath they were heading in the wrong direction ... they did not lisson.... in the end they came around to his form of thinking but it was always to late....

Do you know waht to late means... It means a lot of dead people....

He spacificly said that things must move at the proper tempos.... Moving to fast or to slow will fuck everything up... the Stalinists moved things to slow and then they moved things to fast and waht we have know is a legacy of dead people and capitalism on arampage in the year 2007.....

After the Stalinist let themm gain control and power the Stalinist crushed them....

How many time did the Stainist rewrite thier five year play at the time...

In one plan it was ok for the kulaks to grow... then the next year it was not.....

Reactionary ,,, reactionary,,,, reactionary......

Trotski was leagues ahead of them in thinking an analysis.... thats just the way it is ... Some people are smarter then others....

he knew that you had to please the farmers and the industrialist... as they needed each other...

They did not want to lisson to him so they killed him.... jsut like all the rest....
look i gtta crash... I work in the morning...

Choi Babe'

[ 27 March 2007: Message edited by: trippie ]

If Trotsky believes that social progress can be made in Russia, even in the 30's under Stalin, independent of a "World revolution," then it is not inherently true that what Hugo Chavez must be condemned as an appeaser, if he believes that social progress can be made in Venuzuela independent of "World Revolution," based on Trotsky's thinking.

[ 27 March 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

What there is evidence for is that the policy which Tortsky advised, and Stalin instituted, with Trotsky's unsolicited support, was that it was a stupid policy, and that both Trotsky and Stalin were stupid people with a tendency toward advocating highly idealized absolutist social policies.

---

I think we have to remember that there were no truly successful economic models to follow at the time. Some history suggests that Tsarist era Russia was a net exporter of grain. I find it difficult to believe that grain was exported only after Russians were well fed. There was no WHO or UN agencies to report on these things.

US military policy is not to tactically remove individuals, but to spend money on war machinery that can chew up ground, shock and awe.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Farmpunk:
So eliminating Chavez via assassination might be just a little too effective for the military minds in the States. If effective, removing certain individuals would call into question US military policy and tactics.

---

quote:

---

So in other words the theory is meaningless. You either need "world revolution," with all countries in support of each other, or social developement can take place in different levels, at different times, in different places. It seems pretty clear to me.

If Trotsky believes that social progress can be made in Russia, even in the 30's under Stalin, independent of a "World revolution," then it is not inherently true that what Hugo Chavez must be condemned as an appeaser, if he believes that social progress can be made in Venuzuela independent of "World Revolution," based on Trotsky's thinking

---

Your deductive skills are lacking....

You need world revolution for socialism to work properly... The world is connected there is no way around it...

At the same time socialism would be rising at different levels in different places... As the world is divided into different nation states at this time...

As one country falls to the workers revolution the others will join it as it progresses around the world... The difference between socialism gaining power around the world and Capitalism, is that the bourgeoisie maintain the class structure and need the different states to divid the proletariat against itself in the capitalist model... The Social revolution will unite the proletatiat from each country removing the need for them to compete...

That is another reason why socialism in one country does not work....

As for your mis-understanding of Trotskys possition . I guess it boils down to your misunderstanding of Marx...

Marx had said that the prolitarian class is a revolutionary class. Trotsky understood what makes them revolutionary and he understood how they could regain control... He was one of the leaders of the first proletarian take over of a country...What kind of knowledge do you thing a person would need to be able to do that?

Do you think that the Bolshevic revolution was a mis hap? How fast did the Bolshevic party Rise to power? It was not long thats for sure because the leaders had the proper understands of Marx....

And Im sure there was some dissillusion on his part as well...

In the end you miss understand what I am saying....

There are real world lessons to be learned in all the falled advancements of Socialism...

For the people like Hugo and Fidel to repeat them over and over again is useless and there is no need for us to believe they will work this time around...

Do I believe that these type of men want a better world ... yes...

Do I believe these types of men know how to do it...NO.....

After listening to you do I believe you would now how to do it ....NO...

Do i believe that Trotsky and Lenin knew how to do it.... Yes..... to a point...

Do I believe that the NDP know how to do it.... NO....

it now falls on us to figure out what needs to be done... The starting point would be to find out who came the closest to making it happen .... how had the beside analysis.... What went wrong ... what theories need to be adjusted....

I'll tell you one theory that is dead... I'll make that two even though they are one in the same...

quote:

---

think the Luis Posada Carriles attempt in Panama was a close call.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:
Who is Luis Posada Carriles

---

Luis Posada Carriles is a murderer and terrorist

[ 28 March 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

If Chavez were assassinated right now, there would be a devastating civil war, where no middle class or upper class person would be safe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trippie:
the theory of Socialism in one country is dead... and the theory of social Democricy is a dead ender as well....

---

I think you're wrong. Five of the top ten most economically competitive nations in the world over the last 15 or 20 years have been social democracies: Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and, arguably enough, Singapore. And if we had advanced democracy in Canada, the NDP would have about 54 seats right now instead of 29 and the two old line parties 13 and 10 fewer seats and Bloc 19 fewer, "Greens" about 33. The big money parties are afraid of advanced democracy though and will fight tooth and nail to hang on to the obsolete system.

And since the Republicans had to resort to stealing an election in 2000, several countries around the world have swung to the left in elections: Bulgaria, Spain, Portugal, Austria, Italy, Brazil, Venezuela, Bolivia, Chile, Norway, leftist surges in France, election controversies amid accusations of rigging in Mexico etc

And the CIA actually removed a democratically-elected leader in Haiti with Paul Martin's Liberal government help in this decade.

The left is still very much alive and well around the world, Trippie. You shouldn't pack it in yet because it's early on. Hang in there, the left is here to stay, Trippie. The winds of change blow stronger with every failure of liberal capitalism around the world.

[ 31 March 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
I think you're wrong. Five of the top ten most economically competitive nations in the world over the last 15 or 20 years have been social democracies: Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and, arguably enough, Singapore.

---

quote:

---

Castro: They attempted to execute Chávez but the firing squad refused to shoot.

---

Castro also gives a history lesson. No charge.

There's nothing quite like a smiling rescue by your friends.

[ 31 March 2007: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

Is Singapore a social democracy?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Agent 204:

Is Singapore a social democracy?

---

Singapore consistently ranks higher than Canada among the most competitive economies. Singapore is an Asian country with somewhat different social mores and values to what we are used to in the western world.

Singapore was a third world basket case in 1965. Today, Singaporean's earn fifth highest incomes in the world on average. 90 percent of them live in state housing and homelessness is non-existent. Singapore's state-owned high speed rail transports workers and tourists from one end of the island to the other. Singapore is green, and people there have to apply for a special permit to own and drive a car on the island. Singapore has one of the lowest infant mortality rates in the world. Singapore's income distribution is highly equitable compared with Hong Kong during that capitalist nation's rise to notoriety. Except that Singapore has risen further, faster than Hong Kong did in its glory years, and it's because government inputs into Singapore's highly interventionist economy mirror socialism more than laissez-faire.

Singapore is another of the dragon economies that did not subscribe to Washington consensus in picking the country off its collective knees since WWII.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
None of which proves that Singapore is a social democracy.

---