Venezuela election: Maduro's Socialists trounced - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties from Mexico to Argentina.

Moderator: PoFo Latin America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
#14642122
Hong Wu wrote:So once Venezuela is gone, what communist countries will be left? I'm only aware of China, Vietnam and Bolivia? But China can hardly be called communist at this point. Vietnam has a tourism sector. So in a way it would just be Vietnam and Bolivia?

    wat0n wrote:Cuba, best Korea and maybe Belarus. The rest aren't really communist.

Only China, Vietnam and Cuba are communist states using the usual definition. North Korea and Belarus are just generic dictatorships. And Bolivia is just a populist leftist Latin American regime.

KurtFF8 wrote:You obviously have no idea what that term means.

It's amazing how much Venezuela exposes how misinformed about terms like "socialism" and "communism" a lot of otherwise relatively intelligent people are.


That's a bit unfair. While you are correct that, according to Marxist theory, 'communism' refers to a stateless economic system to come after 'socialism', the term "communist state" has been using both by journalists and historians to refer to single-party regimes ruled by a communist party. Wikipedia (sorry for I not having a better source for this, but I'm not going to do a long research to make a point that everyone knows about already), for example, makes a distinction between:
  • Communism: A political ideology and social movement whose main aim is establishing a communist society
  • Communist society: A classless and stateless type of society and economic system postulated by Marxist theory
  • Communist party: A political party that advocates adopting policies with the goal of eventually becoming a communist society
  • Communist state: A term used by historians and the journalists to refer to states ruled by a communist party, with the main objective of establishing a communist society in the future

So it's not really a matter of being misinformed. I myself know all that and continue calling countries like Cuba and Vietnam "communists states", because that's what they are, giving the most common definition of the term, which I gave above. It's just a different perspective.

It's similar to how, to astronomers, every chemical element that comes after Helium in the periodic table is a metal. A chemist will definitely disagree, but those are two separate fields, each using its own terminology.

It's the same thing here. While a Marxist theorist will not consider those countries 'communist', using their definition of the term, most historians will, because, from the historical perspective of the Cold War, those are all 'communist states', i.e., single party regimes ruled by a party whose ultimate goal was to establish a true communist society in their country.

I have serious doubts about whether or not a true 'communist society' will ever be reached, or even of it is achievable. I am inclined to say no, because there is no logical scientific argument that a classless society is possible, considering there has never been one. But that's another topic.
#14643170
We know communism fails everywhere. Nowadays communists try to hide their real nature, but eventually it surfaces. Cuba is typical. Today it has an hereditary dictatorship, with a nearly hereditary upper caste, turning away from communism.
#14643235
Smertios, I'm quite familiar with how bourgeois historians and journalists use the term "communist country" incorrectly. It may sound a bit nitpicky, but it would be much easier for everyone of they just used a term like "communist-led country."

But none of that addressed my point about how Venezuela is neither communist or socialist, but rather a bourgeois capitalist country that has a ruling party which sees socialism as the goal. However the country did not go through a working class revolution, and the capitalist class was left in tact.

Angelamerkel, your post is nothing but a troll attempt, it adds nothing to the conversation except to increase your post count.
#14643424
KurtFF8 wrote:But none of that addressed my point about how Venezuela is neither communist or socialist, but rather a bourgeois capitalist country that has a ruling party which sees socialism as the goal. However the country did not go through a working class revolution, and the capitalist class was left in tact.

As I mentioned before, I've discussed this fairly freely with a well educated friend from Ecuador, which has a similar "socialist" dilemma. She feels strongly disappointed that a socialist bureaucracy has stifled the promises of socialist goals ... Would you attribute this to capitalist influence and the lack of a true revolutionary process ... or is it the inherent failure of a flawed ideology? Socialism hasn't REALLY - succeeded - anywhere, at best it's managed to drag itself in the dust while capitalism advances by leaps and bounds ?

Zam
#14643510
There are no socialist countries in Latin America besides Cuba. Ecuador and Venezuela are capitalist countries that have elected socialist political parties. Same thing in Greece, yet Greece is still quite clearly a capitalist country.

The leading industries in many of these places are in the hands of a bourgeoisie, private ownership of the means of production is still the dominant form, etc. etc.
#14643520
KurtFF8 wrote:There are no socialist countries in Latin America besides Cuba. Ecuador and Venezuela are capitalist countries that have elected socialist political parties.

Yes ... and they have elected those socialist governments to enact socialist reforms of that "Capitalist" dynamic ... those socialist governments have FAILED ... which is WHY they are NOT socialist countries ... duh? Your circular logic in no way helps pinpoint the problem or devise solutions.

Zam
#14643523
Zamuel wrote:Yes ... and they have elected those socialist governments to enact socialist reforms of that "Capitalist" dynamic


What in the heck is a "socialist reform to a capitalist dynamic"?

those socialist governments have FAILED ... which is WHY they are NOT socialist countries ... duh? Your circular logic in no way helps pinpoint the problem or devise solutions.


In what sense have they "failed" exactly? And they are not socialist countries, I'm not sure why this needs to keep being repeated. What is so confusing about this?
#14643583
KurtFF8 wrote:In what sense have they "failed" exactly? And they are not socialist countries, I'm not sure why this needs to keep being repeated. What is so confusing about this?

Ok ... Stay with me ... we'll go slow ...

The people in these countries ELECTED blatantly socialist governments to reform their countries into SOCIALIST STATES ... Is that clear ?

If they had been successful, those countries would now BE Socialist States ... Right ? you get it ?

The fact that they are NOT socialist states is due to the FAILURE of those elected Socialist Governments to deliver what they promised.

My friend from Ecuador says that in her country, the ELECTED SOCIALIST GOVERNMENT created a huge bureaucracy that stifled all attempts to change ANYTHING. People have lost confidence, but are now confronted by a monster government that appears intent on doing ANYTHING to remain in power. This doesn't sound much like a people's revolutionary government to me ... Unless you count the one in North Korea.

Zam
#14643587
Zamuel wrote:Ok ... Stay with me ... we'll go slow ...

The people in these countries ELECTED blatantly socialist governments to reform their countries into SOCIALIST STATES ... Is that clear ?

If they had been successful, those countries would now BE Socialist States ... Right ? you get it ?

The fact that they are NOT socialist states is due to the FAILURE of those elected Socialist Governments to deliver what they promised.


This isn't even accurate considering that Chavez and his original party were more social democratic than socialist. Socialism as a goal came later on, just like the Cuban revolution to an extent. Next time you throw condescending remarks, maybe try at least a few minutes on google first.

Interesting how you completely ignored my question about your bizarre framing of it here though.


My friend from Ecuador says that in her country, the ELECTED SOCIALIST GOVERNMENT created a huge bureaucracy that stifled all attempts to change ANYTHING. People have lost confidence, but are now confronted by a monster government that appears intent on doing ANYTHING to remain in power. This doesn't sound much like a people's revolutionary government to me ... Unless you count the one in North Korea.


This is the equivalent of saying "well my friend lives there and says it's BAD so it must be bad!"
#14643601
Zamuel wrote:The fact that they are NOT socialist states is due to the FAILURE of those elected Socialist Governments to deliver what they promised.
KurtFF8 wrote: Next time you throw condescending remarks

You painted yourself into a corner, not me. I asked a simple question "why did these attempts to achieve socialism fail." Saying "because they weren't socialist" might cut it if this were -Monty PoFo-but it ain't.

Zamuel wrote:My friend from Ecuador says that in her country, the ELECTED SOCIALIST GOVERNMENT created a huge bureaucracy that stifled all attempts to change ANYTHING. People have lost confidence, but are now confronted by a monster government that appears intent on doing ANYTHING to remain in power. This doesn't sound much like a people's revolutionary government to me ... Unless you count the one in North Korea.
KurtFF8 wrote:This is the equivalent of saying "well my friend lives there and says it's BAD so it must be bad!"

No, it's the equivalent of saying "here's a first hand impression." One that I found quite different from what the press is reporting.

Zam
#14643926
Zamuel wrote:I asked a simple question "why did these attempts to achieve socialism fail."


Actually all you did was throw a silly little empty jab of "Socialism hasn't REALLY - succeeded - anywhere." When I point out that Venezuela isn't a case of failed socialism because it's a capitalist country, you've started pretending that this was your point from the beginning.

No, it's the equivalent of saying "here's a first hand impression." One that I found quite different from what the press is reporting.


And if you poll Tea Party or Trump supporters in the US, you would get a first hand impression that the US is an evil dictatorship run by an atheist/Muslim/Communist/insert whatever other political insult.
#14644046
The lopsided defeat of the socialist party led by Maduro shows the majority of venezuelans are opposed to his socialist ideas. Maduro has driven Venezuela into a total collapse, seems unable to learn from his defeat. I read he's trying to implement solutions suggested by Spanish communists, which are guaranteed to lead to famine.
#14644098
Angelamerkel wrote:The lopsided defeat of the socialist party led by Maduro shows the majority of venezuelans are opposed to his socialist ideas. Maduro has driven Venezuela into a total collapse, seems unable to learn from his defeat. I read he's trying to implement solutions suggested by Spanish communists, which are guaranteed to lead to famine.

Exactly ... Socialism was a popular concept when it was initiated in these S. American countries, but it has failed to deliver what it promised ... That's NOT a value judgement condemning socialism, it's a simple fact. Having failed, these governments remain reluctant to surrender power. There is a definite LACK of progressive leadership proposing solutions, but that's no excuse to start bending the rules towards tyranny.

Zam
#14644157
Well, what I really think is that the pink tide, as its name suggest, was a political wave like pretty much any other in Latin America. It was doomed to fail like pretty much every other wave in Latin America. Just like we had military juntas before it (many of which had popular support at first). And before that, we had a wave of electoral populism. Before that, we had Peron-style nationalism. Before that, we had agricultural oligarchies that behaved more like aristocracies than anything. Before that we had caudillos from powerful aristocratic families. And so on...

And those waves have been coming and going ever since Latin American countries became independent (or, in the case of Brazil, ever since it became a republic). With each wave, new institutions are established and old ones are terminated, a new constitution is written, etc. Stability is rarely an outcome.

And the thing with the pink tide (and all of its offshoots, including Venezuela's socialism of the 21st century[i]) is that it never even tried to look different from other waves. Just like it happened before, some leftist parties came to power and respected the preceding institutions (as it happened in Brazil, Uruguay, Chile, Peru, etc). Some changed the constitution and/or major institutions to remain in power, using the same [i]caudillo tactics that were so common before (like Venezuela, Bolivia, Argentina, Nicaragua, Honduras, etc). Anyone who claims that people like Chavez and Maduro aren't caudillos is either an ideologue of really naïve. The only thing they have that is different from the conservative caudillos of older times is their ideology. Their tactics are the exact same.

In the end, the leftists fell from power for the same reason the juntas fell: they failed to deliver. The juntas promised economic growth and prosperity. And, while the economy was good, people were willing to overlook all the repression. When the economy went bad, people started caring and the juntas fell. Leftists did the exact same thing: they promised growth and prosperity and, aided by the commodities boom that was going on, manage to remain in power with high approval ratings. When that boom was over, inflation came back, unemployment went up and we can all see what is happening today. The leftist regimes/governments that haven't fallen yet will probably fall soon.

And that's all there is to it. Chavez and Maduro didn't fail because of their ideology. They failed because of their incompetence. And the same thing can be said of the two Kirchners in Argentina. Or even Lula and Dilma in Brazil.

KurtFF8 wrote:Smertios, I'm quite familiar with how bourgeois historians and journalists use the term "communist country" incorrectly. It may sound a bit nitpicky, but it would be much easier for everyone of they just used a term like "communist-led country."

But none of that addressed my point about how Venezuela is neither communist or socialist, but rather a bourgeois capitalist country that has a ruling party which sees socialism as the goal. However the country did not go through a working class revolution, and the capitalist class was left in tact.


Well, if we are gonna be nitpicky, then it isn't fair to say that any of the countries mentioned (even Cuba) is socialist either. Not even places like China, Vietnam or the USSR were socialist according to the Marxian theory. Marx predicted that liberal democracy would eventually lead to proletarian revolution and a socialist economy would be reached. Not even Lenin believed Russia could become socialist right away, practically inventing the system of "state capitalism" that remained until the fall of the Soviet Union.

Anyway, when it comes to terminology, I usually follow the rule that, if the terminology is broadly used and we can understand what the other person meant, then the terminology used is good. If we were discussing Marxist theory, then that term "communist state" should probably be avoided. But as we are discussing countries that are geopolitically referred to as "communist states" in academia and the media, I think it is a fair term to use.

Of course, I don't think it applies to Venezuela, as they were never a one-party state. Though I suppose that it was always one of Chavez's goals. That's usually where countries are headed when they start imprisoning political leaders of other parties, after all.
#14644211
Smertios wrote:Well, what I really think is that the pink tide, as its name suggest, was a political wave like pretty much any other in Latin America. It was doomed to fail like pretty much every other wave in Latin America.

SO ... would it be fair to say rampant self interest is to blame for the recurring failure of the affected states to achieve social progress ?

Zam
#14644421
Zamuel wrote:SO ... would it be fair to say rampant self interest is to blame for the recurring failure of the affected states to achieve social progress ?

Zam


Well, yes. If you look at post-independence Hispanic American history (and post-imperial Brazilian history), you'll see the same pattern taking place over and over again. While some countries don't really have a strong caudillo tradition, most Latin American countries do.

In Brazil, for example, true dictatorships (i.e., a single guy holding all the power, in the traditional caudillo fashion) are rare. In fact, there have been just two examples: the first was just after the monarchy fell, when military leaders (first, Deodoro da Fonseca, then Floriano Peixoto) were nominated presidents and ruled as dictators (i.e., closed congress, repressed protests, etc) from 1889 to 1894; and the second was during Getúlio Vargas's nationalist dictatorship (1930-1945), when there wasn't even a sitting congress for most of his tenure. The Brazilian military junta, which ruled the country between 1964 and 1985, was what some people like to call a "dictatorship by committee", where there were multiple people making decisions, both from the military and civilian ranks. The reason why Brazil is slightly different from other Latin American nations in this regard has to do with the imperial period (1822-1889), which cultivated a strong parliamentary tradition in which decisions were taken collectively.

In Hispanic America, however, this non-caudillo tradition is rarer. The military juntas of Argentina, Chile and Paraguay, for example, had strongmen who were in charge of most decisions (Videla in Argentina, Pinochet in Chile, Stroessner in Paraguay). The only other Latin American junta from the 1970s and 1980s that I can remember that was ruled by a committee rather than a single dictator was Uruguay (maybe I'm unaware of others, though).

That's pretty much why the "pink tideists" in some countries behave like traditional caudillos (like Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela, Evo Morales in Bolivia, Fernando Lugo in Paraguay, Nestor and Cristina Kirchner in Argentina, etc), while others behave as a more democratic "committee" (like Lula and Dilma Rousseff in Brazil, Tabaré Vasquez and José Mujica in Uruguay, Michelle Bachelet in Chile, etc).

But in the end of the day, all of those leftist governments have a similar goal: remaining in power. Many deliberately jeopardized their countries' economies in order to do so. In Brazil, for example, during the electoral campaign in 2014, all the candidates in the opposition candidates warned that the economy would go downhill and that the government would be forced to make cuts in 2015. Dilma Rousseff, on the other hand, denied all of that, saying the economy was fine and that the country would continue growing. In the end, she was proven wrong, and her popularity declined a lot (even her own voters now believe she was lying about the economy).

What really changes is simply the methods used to remain in power. In countries with weak institutions, like Venezuela, the government can write a new constitution and replace all institutions with others that are favorable to them. In countries without weak institutions, like Brazil, that's usually not possible, so the government is forced to make concessions to other political groups (which, in the Latin American case, often means corruption, briberies, distribution of cabinet positions to inexperienced politicians from smaller parties, etc).
#14644610
Smertios wrote:But in the end of the day, all of those leftist governments have a similar goal: remaining in power. Many deliberately jeopardized their countries' economies in order to do so.

That post was very helpful ... It left me thinking of the Sandinistas. I'm no expert, but as I recall they decentralized authority and still managed to get quite a bit done in the poor rural areas while fighting off the contra's. It seems obvious that a new dynamic is required that can shake these traditional patterns of power and inspire a new generation to leave them behind. Where is it to be found ? Is it possible for something like the Sandinistas to succeed if there's no Ronald Reagan breathing down their necks ? It seems to me the PEOPLE there have the will and endurance to do better.

Zam
#14644689
Angelamerkel wrote:The lopsided defeat of the socialist party led by Maduro shows the majority of venezuelans are opposed to his socialist ideas. Maduro has driven Venezuela into a total collapse, seems unable to learn from his defeat. I read he's trying to implement solutions suggested by Spanish communists, which are guaranteed to lead to famine.



This is very silly considering that the Chavistas have won significantly more elections, appealing to the very same "socialist ideas."

Smertios wrote:Well, if we are gonna be nitpicky, then it isn't fair to say that any of the countries mentioned (even Cuba) is socialist either. Not even places like China, Vietnam or the USSR were socialist according to the Marxian theory. Marx predicted that liberal democracy would eventually lead to proletarian revolution and a socialist economy would be reached. Not even Lenin believed Russia could become socialist right away, practically inventing the system of "state capitalism" that remained until the fall of the Soviet Union.


This is something that only a very small percent of Leninists would agree with. Marxist-Leninists (like those in charge in places like Cuba) would definitely disagree with this analysis.

Earlier you wrote:
In the end, the leftists fell from power for the same reason the juntas fell: they failed to deliver.


This is partially true of course: the pink tide folks were indeed able to overcome capitalism in their own countries. Venezuela is a great example of the combined objective and subjective conditions leading to their defeat. Although it's not as simple as "well the Venezuelan Left didn't deliver" considering that there has been a Venezuelan right, backed by US imperialism, that has been trying to undermine them at every step.

Of course, I don't think it applies to Venezuela, as they were never a one-party state.


Indeed. And if you don't even think that the USSR or Cuba were/are socialist, then I'm sure you agree that Venezuela isn't and hasn't been.

But in the end of the day, all of those leftist governments have a similar goal: remaining in power.


That's not really a fair description at all. Their objective wasn't simply to remain in power, but to empower the poorer sections in society and change the balance of class forces.
#14644898
Zamuel wrote:That post was very helpful ... It left me thinking of the Sandinistas. I'm no expert, but as I recall they decentralized authority and still managed to get quite a bit done in the poor rural areas while fighting off the contra's. It seems obvious that a new dynamic is required that can shake these traditional patterns of power and inspire a new generation to leave them behind. Where is it to be found ? Is it possible for something like the Sandinistas to succeed if there's no Ronald Reagan breathing down their necks ? It seems to me the PEOPLE there have the will and endurance to do better.


Well, I'm not really that familiar with Nicaragua's political history to answer that.

But I have to say that it's not a matter of not being able to do anything. The leftist governments did accomplish plenty of stuff. Nobody here in Brazil denies that the PT government raised millions of people above the poverty line during their 13-year tenure (so far at least), for example. It's just a matter of them not being able to maintain prosperity levels high enough for long. The same could be said of Venezuela.

By the way, sorry I'm using Brazil as an example so much, but it is the country I'm the most familiar with, for obvious reasons. The situations are similar throughout the continent, though, so I hope that is not a serious problem.

And it is mostly stubbornness in play here. For example, here in Brazil, inflation surpassed 10%/yr by the end of 2015. Now the Central Bank, under pressure from the government, is stubbornly refusing to increase interest rates, while the government itself is refusing to decrease its expenditure. And all of that is just because the more radical members of the leftist parties in the government think that high interest rates and low government spending is a bad thing.

KurtFF8 wrote:This is very silly considering that the Chavistas have won significantly more elections, appealing to the very same "socialist ideas."


I disagree. I really doubt most Venezuelan voters (or most voters in any country) really care about the ideological debate. Maduro's government policies and electoral promises were all very similar to Chavez's. The real issue there was the fact that Chavez and Maduro were populists. And charisma plays a huge role in populism. And while Chavez was highly charismatic, Maduro isn't.

I think that even the bad situation of the economy wouldn't have been enough to prevent Chavez from staying in power, really. People simply liked him more.

This is something that only a very small percent of Leninists would agree with. Marxist-Leninists (like those in charge in places like Cuba) would definitely disagree with this analysis.


Of course the people in those countries claiming that they are true socialist societies will disagree. But many (if not most) Trotskyists, Maoists and other communists operating in democracies argue that a true socialist society was never implemented anywhere on Earth.

And the truth remains that, unlike what was theorized by Marx, there was no gradual withering way of the state. There was a revolution that put even more power in the hands of the state. From the Marxist perspective, the "capitalistic" power simply went from landowner to state bureaucrats.

Even Lenin agreed that Russia couldn't go straight from its feudal society to socialism, having introduced the term 'state capitalism' to describe the economic system the Soviet Union would have to use before the
    “State capitalism would be a step forward as compared with the present state of affairs in our Soviet Republic. If in approximately six months’ time state capitalism became established in our Republic, this would be a great success and a sure guarantee that within a year socialism will have gained a permanently firm hold.” ~ Lenin, 1921

Lenin thought that, by giving the control over the means of production to the state (thus establishing state capitalism), a true socialist society would be reached shortly after, when the means of production would be controlled by the workers, thus allowing for the state to wither away, as predicted.

What we saw, however, was a state becoming more and more powerful over the next few decades.

Earlier you wrote:
    “In the end, the leftists fell from power for the same reason the juntas fell: they failed to deliver.”

This is partially true of course: the pink tide folks were indeed able to overcome capitalism in their own countries. Venezuela is a great example of the combined objective and subjective conditions leading to their defeat. Although it's not as simple as "well the Venezuelan Left didn't deliver" considering that there has been a Venezuelan right, backed by US imperialism, that has been trying to undermine them at every step.


Were they? I mean, apart from Venezuela (and perhaps Bolivia), where else did capitalism come even close to being overcome in Latin America? Most pink tideists behave like true social democrats, and coexisted peacefully with non-leftist parties and social movements.

Here in Brazil, both the Lula and Dilma administrations included several right-wing and centrist parties in their coalitions. Heck, one of the biggest supporters of the government is the conservative PP, which, despite the changed name, is the same party that ruled the country during the military regime (back when they were still called ARENA).

That's not really a fair description at all. Their objective wasn't simply to remain in power, but to empower the poorer sections in society and change the balance of class forces.


That might have been the ideological reasoning behind their actions, but honestly, I doubt that was their end goal. For most of them, at least (Cuba was never part of the pink tide, as they have been a leftist dictatorship all along).

Ideology has never been a strong point in Latin American politics. The leftist leaders in countries like Brazil, Argentina, Peru etc. have all enriched themselves while winning elections using their populist discourses.

Though I have to admit that I'm not sure if that was the case in Venezuela. But considering the state of affairs in this region (i.e., politicians side with whoever is in power to keep their wealth), I seriously doubt all of Chavez's supporters were always acting in good faith, rather than supporting the government to personally benefit.
#14645138
Smertios wrote:I disagree. I really doubt most Venezuelan voters (or most voters in any country) really care about the ideological debate. Maduro's government policies and electoral promises were all very similar to Chavez's. The real issue there was the fact that Chavez and Maduro were populists. And charisma plays a huge role in populism. And while Chavez was highly charismatic, Maduro isn't.

I think that even the bad situation of the economy wouldn't have been enough to prevent Chavez from staying in power, really. People simply liked him more.


It doesn't seem that you disagree here. I was responding to Angelamerkel's claim that the voters were rejecting socialist ideas by pointing out that voters have been supporting candidates who have been promoting those very ideas for over a decade now. Your response here is to agree (although in a very different way) that it wasn't just a rejection of socialist ideas.

Of course the people in those countries claiming that they are true socialist societies will disagree. But many (if not most) Trotskyists, Maoists and other communists operating in democracies argue that a true socialist society was never implemented anywhere on Earth.


I don't think most Maoists would agree with that sentiment actually. Maoism will often claim that the USSR and Cuba were ruled by "revisionists" who began to restore capitalism after a period of true socialist construction. Some Trotskyists will claim that the USSR and Cuba are/were "state-capitalists," but even they are a minority among Trot groups that largely come from the Tony Cliff tendency. There are also many Trot groups that reject this idea and hold the classic "degenerated workers state" analysis rather than "state capitalism."

So don't represent this as a popular current within Marxism, because it really isn't.

And the truth remains that, unlike what was theorized by Marx, there was no gradual withering way of the state. There was a revolution that put even more power in the hands of the state. From the Marxist perspective, the "capitalistic" power simply went from landowner to state bureaucrats.


It seems that you're just trying to drive a fictional wedge between Leninism and Marxism here when in reality the Leninist understanding of the State comes directly from Marx's analysis of the Paris Commune.

Even Lenin agreed that Russia couldn't go straight from its feudal society to socialism, having introduced the term 'state capitalism' to describe the economic system the Soviet Union would have to use before the
    “State capitalism would be a step forward as compared with the present state of affairs in our Soviet Republic. If in approximately six months’ time state capitalism became established in our Republic, this would be a great success and a sure guarantee that within a year socialism will have gained a permanently firm hold.” ~ Lenin, 1921

Lenin thought that, by giving the control over the means of production to the state (thus establishing state capitalism), a true socialist society would be reached shortly after, when the means of production would be controlled by the workers, thus allowing for the state to wither away, as predicted.


He also ended that quote with "this would be a great success and a sure guarantee that within a year socialism will have gained a permanently firm hold."

Of course the important thing here is to point out the anticipation of the German Revolution's success in building socialism, not the fact that he used the term "state capitalism." This would be a very dogmatic reading of Lenin.

What we saw, however, was a state becoming more and more powerful over the next few decades.


Of course, this is because the material conditions for the stage of the withering away of the state did not present themselves for very obvious reasons.


Were they? I mean, apart from Venezuela (and perhaps Bolivia), where else did capitalism come even close to being overcome in Latin America? Most pink tideists behave like true social democrats, and coexisted peacefully with non-leftist parties and social movements.


Hmm this must have been a typo and I meant to say "weren't able to overcome" because my larger point (which I feel was quite clear) was that those countries all remained capitalist.



That might have been the ideological reasoning behind their actions, but honestly, I doubt that was their end goal. For most of them, at least (Cuba was never part of the pink tide, as they have been a leftist dictatorship all along).

Ideology has never been a strong point in Latin American politics. The leftist leaders in countries like Brazil, Argentina, Peru etc. have all enriched themselves while winning elections using their populist discourses.

Though I have to admit that I'm not sure if that was the case in Venezuela. But considering the state of affairs in this region (i.e., politicians side with whoever is in power to keep their wealth), I seriously doubt all of Chavez's supporters were always acting in good faith, rather than supporting the government to personally benefit.


If it were simply about maintaining power, I feel these political parties would have taken easier and more conciliatory roles with not only their own bourgeois classes, but with US imperialism. Yet they took the difficult road of trying to actually build the power of the working and poor classes of their countries to put them on a path that was distinct from the neoliberal model altogether. This is hardly "just tryin' to stay in power!"
Israel-Palestinian War 2023

The Settlement program is an example of slow ethn[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Meanwhile, your opponents argue that everyone e[…]

People tend to forget that the French now have a s[…]

Neither is an option too. Neither have your inte[…]