Delcy already made the case for me. They are transitioning to a country with more “freedom”.
Now there’s two lenses to look at the word freedom through, the proletarian lens or the bourgeois lens. Do you think that what she means is that there will be more proletarian freedom or more bourgeois freedom?
The answer to this question tells you all you need to know about the direction of things. The country is going to hand over power to the bourgeoisie, and when they do get that power they will use their time in power to reinforce bourgeois rule again.
I think the best case scenario for Venezuela is that the left ends up still being a force, like in Bolivia, but ultimately not being in-charge. But that is very very far from the AES that has controlled the country since Chavez.
I don’t think you call Bolivia AES. So if Venezuela ends up in that kind of situation, will you still be calling Venezuela AES? If you won’t be calling Venezuela AES because it ends up in that kind of situation then you must admit that this is the end of AES in Venezuela.
When will this happen for you? When a bourgeois party wins the next election will you stop calling Venezuela AES and admit that she ended AES in Venezuela or will you still call the country AES while it has a bourgeois neoliberal party in charge?
It might be worthwhile considering that Great Man Theory isn’t real.
When will this happen for you? When a bourgeois party wins the next election will you stop calling Venezuela AES and admit that she ended AES in Venezuela or will you still call the country AES while it has a bourgeois neoliberal party in charge?
Maybe ponder your presumptions aren’t my axioms.
Venezuela is a pro-social project not a DOTP. The seeds of the DOTP are in the communes; that’s where the base for a vanguard is and for holding the PSUV (which as a whole is not an ML vanguard) accountable.
Gestural aesthetics aside you’re not making the case yet of a path forward that would not have resulted in mass death; if other countries have stood against the Empire and sustained mass death, then their martyrdom is not a purity test for one to hold against states who have a gun to their head too and have decided instead to offer concessions as an oppurtunity cost to a domestic holocaust. Especially pro-social projects under the weight of the Monroe Doctrine.
We aren’t positivists for whom stumbling on the right answer or predictions trumps the journey that took us there. This ain’t polymarket with red characteristics.
It might be worthwhile considering that Great Man Theory isn’t real.
Oh ok so Delcy does not hold the power to give Venezuela’s oil to the US then?
Venuzeula is a pro-social project not a DOTP. The seeds of the DOTP are in the communes; that’s where the base for a vanguard is and for holding the PSUV (which as a whole is not an ML vanguard) accountable.
Ok so your position is that Venezuela is not AES and never has been AES.
We are starting from different positions. I hold the position that it is and has been AES ever since Chavez. As such I hold the position that Delcy is bringing about the end of that.
You hold the position that it is not AES and never has been. So you see this situation as just a new phase of struggle.
Our disagreement stems from different starting positions. My point here is that anyone who has ever made the argument that Venezuela is AES can not look upon Delcy’s actions and not see a traitor to that. She absolutely IS bringing about the end of what we called AES. A new phase of struggle will certainly begin, one against a capitalist state in the control of the bourgeoisie again.
We disagree with one another because we hold different takes on what Venezuela is and has been for many years in the first place. You will find that the people who you and some of your friends are calling the “ultraleft” are the people who have been using the term AES to defend it for a very long time now.
Oh ok so Delcy does not hold the power to give Venezuela’s oil to the US then?
“Delcy” is a function of a state and a system; what gives her power, and allows her decisions to be actionable is what such a system allows for.
…Venezuela is not AES…
I would define AES as a DOTP; a scientifically socialist state. States can transition and as Lenin puts it history moves in zigs-zags. We have the weight of history from Brest-Litovsk to the first 9-11 and beyond to draw those lines.
We disagree with one another because we hold different takes on what Venezuela is and has been for many years in the first place. You will find that the people who you and some of your friends are calling the “ultraleft” are the people who have been using the term AES to defend it for a very long time now.
It is immature to consider a cliquey paradigm to analyse geopolitics. Marxism is a science.
I do not think it is cliquey to say Venezuela was AES which is coming to an end because of structural failures to secure a DOTP and because Delcy chooses not to fight because she does not wish to end up like Maduro.
The reality of what is occurring here is that Maduro was willing to die for keeping socialism and Delcy is not.
You would’ve defended Gorbachev too
Out of arguments already? Oh wait, you never had any to begin with.
Oh there’s a group of you communicating with one another? Interesting.
More projection
Projection about… My secret support for Gorbachev?
Come on at least make sense
Says the person with the drive-by commenting. Feel free to make the case you’re worth the time spent.
Delcy already made the case for me. They are transitioning to a country with more “freedom”.
Now there’s two lenses to look at the word freedom through, the proletarian lens or the bourgeois lens. Do you think that what she means is that there will be more proletarian freedom or more bourgeois freedom?
The answer to this question tells you all you need to know about the direction of things. The country is going to hand over power to the bourgeoisie, and when they do get that power they will use their time in power to reinforce bourgeois rule again.
I think the best case scenario for Venezuela is that the left ends up still being a force, like in Bolivia, but ultimately not being in-charge. But that is very very far from the AES that has controlled the country since Chavez.
I don’t think you call Bolivia AES. So if Venezuela ends up in that kind of situation, will you still be calling Venezuela AES? If you won’t be calling Venezuela AES because it ends up in that kind of situation then you must admit that this is the end of AES in Venezuela.
When will this happen for you? When a bourgeois party wins the next election will you stop calling Venezuela AES and admit that she ended AES in Venezuela or will you still call the country AES while it has a bourgeois neoliberal party in charge?
It might be worthwhile considering that Great Man Theory isn’t real.
Maybe ponder your presumptions aren’t my axioms.
Venezuela is a pro-social project not a DOTP. The seeds of the DOTP are in the communes; that’s where the base for a vanguard is and for holding the PSUV (which as a whole is not an ML vanguard) accountable.
Gestural aesthetics aside you’re not making the case yet of a path forward that would not have resulted in mass death; if other countries have stood against the Empire and sustained mass death, then their martyrdom is not a purity test for one to hold against states who have a gun to their head too and have decided instead to offer concessions as an oppurtunity cost to a domestic holocaust. Especially pro-social projects under the weight of the Monroe Doctrine.
We aren’t positivists for whom stumbling on the right answer or predictions trumps the journey that took us there. This ain’t polymarket with red characteristics.
Oh ok so Delcy does not hold the power to give Venezuela’s oil to the US then?
Ok so your position is that Venezuela is not AES and never has been AES.
We are starting from different positions. I hold the position that it is and has been AES ever since Chavez. As such I hold the position that Delcy is bringing about the end of that.
You hold the position that it is not AES and never has been. So you see this situation as just a new phase of struggle.
Our disagreement stems from different starting positions. My point here is that anyone who has ever made the argument that Venezuela is AES can not look upon Delcy’s actions and not see a traitor to that. She absolutely IS bringing about the end of what we called AES. A new phase of struggle will certainly begin, one against a capitalist state in the control of the bourgeoisie again.
We disagree with one another because we hold different takes on what Venezuela is and has been for many years in the first place. You will find that the people who you and some of your friends are calling the “ultraleft” are the people who have been using the term AES to defend it for a very long time now.
“Delcy” is a function of a state and a system; what gives her power, and allows her decisions to be actionable is what such a system allows for.
I would define AES as a DOTP; a scientifically socialist state. States can transition and as Lenin puts it history moves in zigs-zags. We have the weight of history from Brest-Litovsk to the first 9-11 and beyond to draw those lines.
It is immature to consider a cliquey paradigm to analyse geopolitics. Marxism is a science.
I do not think it is cliquey to say Venezuela was AES which is coming to an end because of structural failures to secure a DOTP and because Delcy chooses not to fight because she does not wish to end up like Maduro.
The reality of what is occurring here is that Maduro was willing to die for keeping socialism and Delcy is not.