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.
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.
Venuzuelans aren’t your sacrificial lambs to meet your socialism-martyr-test especially when you got jack all to show for it on your domestic turf
Are the people in Britain my sacrificial lambs then since I reside here? Or the people of the Czech Republic for my ethnicity? Should I stop calling for and pushing revolution here? Is it only Britain that I am allowed to speak on? Seems like a nationalist argument.
If never calling for anyone to risk themselves is your position then surely I should also stop calling and pushing for it here? People will die if revolution happens. Who am I to say anyone should fight anywhere? Each individual should decide for themselves?
Or should I stop being an individualist and hold the position that sacrifice for the class is a necessary part of everything we are doing? And that the proletarian class holds far greater importance than any of us as individuals anywhere in the world?
Would you have made all of these same arguments about the end of the USSR? How about the end of all the african communist states that quickly reformed after the USSR fell? Were they doing the right thing or should they have fought to maintain and keep their freedom like the DPRK and Cuba?
The reality of what is occurring here is that Maduro was willing to die for keeping socialism and Delcy is not.
Strange statement. Neither is dead in the first place. Maduro was kidnapped and according to how the story goes (including from a lefty source I recall reading) the rest of the leadership essentially had a gun to their head. Suppose they had said “fuck diplomacy, here is my gun,” what would this have accomplished? The US could have continued blockading while patiently planning more decapitation operations of leadership, if need be (like even if the US threat was part bluff in that moment, they could still plan and plot to do more). Venezuela is not in a position like Iran is to make the US hurt for hurting them. They could defend themselves if invaded by making it very painful and not really worth it to occupy them, but this would still involve massive loss of life and sacrifice for a desperate cause.
If you consider it as:
The US really doesn’t want another Vietnam but does want to look like they’re still powerful and in control
Venezuela really doesn’t want their leadership annihilated or their people starved and has limited options for sovereignty through the sword
Then it starts to make sense, the dealing, the posturing, the placating. It starts to make sense why the outcome isn’t as simple as a coup and a dramatic change in Venezuelan policy, nor a principled stand against the empire. Neither side wants to pay the price of what could get them their idea of an ideal outcome, so there’s an element of kayfabe going on. The tension itself is real, the threats are real, but the appearances are (in this view) something of a diplomatic overlay to protect both from harsher realities underneath.
Neither side would benefit from a protracted war involving invasion and resistance. But if Trump can look like he’s good at dealing and make some capitalists happy, he’s happy.
The fact that Maduro is alive doesn’t change the fact that he was willing to die. That he was willing to stand by protecting socialism even if it meant the US doing what it has done.
The only difference between now and before his kidnapping is who is in charge.
Maduro was willing to be attacked by the US. Delcy is not willing to be attacked by the US and is giving up the country to avoid that happening.
That’s it. That’s really all there is to it. The will to fight.
If you’re calling me bad for supporting that then you must have also thought the same about him before then? Did you ever criticise him and say that he should give away Venezuelan oil and open up the country to bourgeois democracy in order to avoid war before the kidnapping happened? Even a single time?
“The reality of what is occurring here is that Maduro was willing to die for keeping socialism and Delcy is not.”
So Venezuelans should die in a horrific and (at best) pyrrhic campaign set in the backyard of the Empire, separated miles and miles by ocean from their biggest allies in the form of Russia and China, while their closest ally in the form of Cuba has been choked to near-death for decades since the 90s?
This is a strategic nightmare militarily. You can even see it in regards to the Zaptistas and the FARCs. Despite their best, the current geographic location absolutely does not help them in issues of foreign supply and advisory. Let alone the fact that Venezuela is on the east of the Panama Canal, which is under Comprador control practically. Either that or you go around the fucking continent. It’s a goddamn military nightmare in any form of doctrine. Cuba’s liberation was a real lucky shot (probably because they weren’t strictly Marxist-Leninist until after the revolution), but attempts to recreate such a revolution unfortunately did not go as planned in Bolivia, etc. Vietnam and Korea were literally touching the USSR and PRC, it was easy to organize foreign assistance and supply to these underdeveloped/ravaged places. You cant do that with Venezuela.
If they want to keep socialism instead of putting the proletariat back into capital’s chains? Yes. Doing otherwise is called being a traitor to the proletarian class. There is genuinely nothing else to call it.
[Cuba] weren’t strictly Marxist-Leninist until after the revolution
What do you mean by this? The revolution itself as a broad national liberation struggle of average people led by a vanguard of communists? Or do you mean that Fidel was not a marxist-leninist until after the revolution?
If you mean the latter, there is video of Che disputing it. When an interviewer said to Che that people in the US believe he “pulled Castro left” and that the revolution itself was pulled left by Che pulling the strings behind the throne, Che says otherwise. He says he likes this characterisation but his revolutionary and personal honesty must admit that Castro is “the most leftist man in Cuba and greatest danger to the US”, not himself. I do not believe that Che means this only occurred after the revolution because the interview question is specifically on whether Che pulled Fidel left. I’ve just spent a good deal of time digging up the specific timestamp for this, the question is at 23:01 of this video: https://youtu.be/hau5Rxkw-Wg?t=1375
My firm belief is that the idea they were not communists (and specifically Fidel) before the revolution was simply a clever play that worked to build a broad struggle and to reduce the chance of capitalist powers from intervening. Take note that in the following part where he is asked if Fidel was a communist at the time they met, he also says that he himself was not a communist at that time. I am quite certain they all became communists before the revolution was over, and quite probably had all become or at least flirted with such before it had fully began.
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.
Venuzuelans aren’t your sacrificial lambs to meet your socialism-martyr-test especially when you got jack all to show for it on your domestic turf
Are the people in Britain my sacrificial lambs then since I reside here? Or the people of the Czech Republic for my ethnicity? Should I stop calling for and pushing revolution here? Is it only Britain that I am allowed to speak on? Seems like a nationalist argument.
If never calling for anyone to risk themselves is your position then surely I should also stop calling and pushing for it here? People will die if revolution happens. Who am I to say anyone should fight anywhere? Each individual should decide for themselves?
Or should I stop being an individualist and hold the position that sacrifice for the class is a necessary part of everything we are doing? And that the proletarian class holds far greater importance than any of us as individuals anywhere in the world?
Would you have made all of these same arguments about the end of the USSR? How about the end of all the african communist states that quickly reformed after the USSR fell? Were they doing the right thing or should they have fought to maintain and keep their freedom like the DPRK and Cuba?
Strange statement. Neither is dead in the first place. Maduro was kidnapped and according to how the story goes (including from a lefty source I recall reading) the rest of the leadership essentially had a gun to their head. Suppose they had said “fuck diplomacy, here is my gun,” what would this have accomplished? The US could have continued blockading while patiently planning more decapitation operations of leadership, if need be (like even if the US threat was part bluff in that moment, they could still plan and plot to do more). Venezuela is not in a position like Iran is to make the US hurt for hurting them. They could defend themselves if invaded by making it very painful and not really worth it to occupy them, but this would still involve massive loss of life and sacrifice for a desperate cause.
If you consider it as:
The US really doesn’t want another Vietnam but does want to look like they’re still powerful and in control
Venezuela really doesn’t want their leadership annihilated or their people starved and has limited options for sovereignty through the sword
Then it starts to make sense, the dealing, the posturing, the placating. It starts to make sense why the outcome isn’t as simple as a coup and a dramatic change in Venezuelan policy, nor a principled stand against the empire. Neither side wants to pay the price of what could get them their idea of an ideal outcome, so there’s an element of kayfabe going on. The tension itself is real, the threats are real, but the appearances are (in this view) something of a diplomatic overlay to protect both from harsher realities underneath.
Neither side would benefit from a protracted war involving invasion and resistance. But if Trump can look like he’s good at dealing and make some capitalists happy, he’s happy.
It’s not that strange.
The fact that Maduro is alive doesn’t change the fact that he was willing to die. That he was willing to stand by protecting socialism even if it meant the US doing what it has done.
The only difference between now and before his kidnapping is who is in charge.
Maduro was willing to be attacked by the US. Delcy is not willing to be attacked by the US and is giving up the country to avoid that happening.
That’s it. That’s really all there is to it. The will to fight.
If you’re calling me bad for supporting that then you must have also thought the same about him before then? Did you ever criticise him and say that he should give away Venezuelan oil and open up the country to bourgeois democracy in order to avoid war before the kidnapping happened? Even a single time?
“The reality of what is occurring here is that Maduro was willing to die for keeping socialism and Delcy is not.”
So Venezuelans should die in a horrific and (at best) pyrrhic campaign set in the backyard of the Empire, separated miles and miles by ocean from their biggest allies in the form of Russia and China, while their closest ally in the form of Cuba has been choked to near-death for decades since the 90s?
This is a strategic nightmare militarily. You can even see it in regards to the Zaptistas and the FARCs. Despite their best, the current geographic location absolutely does not help them in issues of foreign supply and advisory. Let alone the fact that Venezuela is on the east of the Panama Canal, which is under Comprador control practically. Either that or you go around the fucking continent. It’s a goddamn military nightmare in any form of doctrine. Cuba’s liberation was a real lucky shot (probably because they weren’t strictly Marxist-Leninist until after the revolution), but attempts to recreate such a revolution unfortunately did not go as planned in Bolivia, etc. Vietnam and Korea were literally touching the USSR and PRC, it was easy to organize foreign assistance and supply to these underdeveloped/ravaged places. You cant do that with Venezuela.
If they want to keep socialism instead of putting the proletariat back into capital’s chains? Yes. Doing otherwise is called being a traitor to the proletarian class. There is genuinely nothing else to call it.
What do you mean by this? The revolution itself as a broad national liberation struggle of average people led by a vanguard of communists? Or do you mean that Fidel was not a marxist-leninist until after the revolution?
If you mean the latter, there is video of Che disputing it. When an interviewer said to Che that people in the US believe he “pulled Castro left” and that the revolution itself was pulled left by Che pulling the strings behind the throne, Che says otherwise. He says he likes this characterisation but his revolutionary and personal honesty must admit that Castro is “the most leftist man in Cuba and greatest danger to the US”, not himself. I do not believe that Che means this only occurred after the revolution because the interview question is specifically on whether Che pulled Fidel left. I’ve just spent a good deal of time digging up the specific timestamp for this, the question is at 23:01 of this video: https://youtu.be/hau5Rxkw-Wg?t=1375
My firm belief is that the idea they were not communists (and specifically Fidel) before the revolution was simply a clever play that worked to build a broad struggle and to reduce the chance of capitalist powers from intervening. Take note that in the following part where he is asked if Fidel was a communist at the time they met, he also says that he himself was not a communist at that time. I am quite certain they all became communists before the revolution was over, and quite probably had all become or at least flirted with such before it had fully began.