Chavez Speech (claims to be a maoist)

[repeater]

Friends and Enemies.

I have been a Maoist since I entered military school, I read Che Guevara, I read Bolivar and his speeches and letters, becoming a Bolivarian Maoist, a mixture of all that.

Mao says that it is imperative, for every revolutionary, to determine very clearly who are your friends and who are your enemies.

In Latin America this is particularly important.

rest of speech: www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_16806.shtml

[Andrei_X]

So he learned something from Mao. A lot of people that took things from Mao and learned from him weren't Maoist! *laughs*

I mean, I respect Chavez as a bourgeois-democratic nationalist standing up against imperialism, but he's claiming to be a Maoist? C'mon, Hugo.

[redstar2000GUEST]

No surprise! I think he's also claimed to be a Trotskyist and a "real Christian".

If he thought it would gain him some additional support, he'd probably claim to be a Martian.

Nothing wrong with any of that, of course, as long as it's understood that it's not meant to be taken seriously. To the extent that he firmly opposes U.S. imperialism, I don't care if he worships Zeus or claims to be the legitimate heir to the Holy Roman Empire.

In my opinion, he's Venezuela's version of Franklin D. Roosevelt...or perhaps even Huey P. Long.

Which is just what material conditions call for in Venezuela.

[CommunistLeague]

Guest-redstar2000GUEST said:

In my opinion, he's Venezuela's version of Franklin D. Roosevelt...or perhaps even Huey P. Long.

I don't recall either Roosevelt or Long nationalizing factories under workers' control or expropriating land and giving it to the peasants.

Miles

[redstar2000GUEST]

Miles wrote: I don't recall either Roosevelt or Long nationalizing factories under workers' control or expropriating land and giving it to the peasants.

No, they didn't do those things...but their intent was the same as that of Chavez -- to rescue and re-invigorate capitalism.

I do not know what productive industries have been nationalized by Chavez or what degree of genuine power workers have within them. But I have read about the "land reform" there...it's limited to productive land that's "not already being used" by the landowning class. I would surmise that such comprises a very small portion of the fertile lands in Venezuela.

More important, the Venezuelan government is making a huge effort to attract foreign investment and negotiate trade deals with imperialist countries other than the United States.

It's their version of the "Cuba strategy" -- and well in line with the class interests of the most forward-looking sections of the Venezuelan bourgeoisie...as is the long term strategy of a South American version of the EU. If Venezuela (or any "third world" country) is to break the political/military strangle-hold of U.S. imperialism, then they must achieve their own "captive markets" under the domination of their own bourgeoisie.

I think this is, at least roughly, what Marx would have expected in the case of countries like Venezuela at their level of economic development.

Note that after the NEP, Lenin did everything in his power to attract fresh capitalist investment to the USSR...and it was his "bad luck" -- and the USSR's good luck -- that the European and American bourgeoisie were too frightened to take him up on his offers.

Whenever imperialist countries dominate the economy of an undeveloped country, the consequence seems to be a "twisted", "deformed", and "limited" development of that country instead of a "natural" progression to a fully capitalist economy.

Like a small tree attempting to grow in the shadow of a large tree.

[CommunistLeague]

Guest-redstar2000GUEST said:

I do not know what productive industries have been nationalized by Chavez or what degree of genuine power workers have within them. But I have read about the "land reform" there...it's limited to productive land that's "not already being used" by the landowning class. I would surmise that such comprises a very small portion of the fertile lands in Venezuela.

The first industry nationalized under workers' control in Venezuela was the main paper mill in the country, called Venepal (now called Invepal). Currently, other industries, including the main construction company and even the oil industry, are also being considered for similar expropriation. (The oil industry, PDVSA, is already nationalized; they are working out how to implement workers' control.)

Actually, about 60 percent of the arable land in Venezuela is not being used. But it doesn't stop there. Recently, the government expropriated a large natural wildlife preserve that was privately owned and part of the country's "ecotourism" industry. Also, there is a push now to expropriate all of the holdings of those capitalists who supported the April 2002 coup and December 2002 capitalist lockout. I don't remember at the moment what the status is of that.

Miles

[RandomCommunist]

Chavez is hardly a Maoist.

In this version of Chavez's speech he claims to be a Maoist since he entered military school. Then why did he for the first time claim that "capitalism must be transcended" at the WSF.

This is another Chavez qoute about a year or two before the WSF...

'I don't believe in the dogmatic postulates of Marxist revolution. I don't accept that we are living in a period of proletarian revolutions. All that must be revised. Reality is telling us that every day. Are we aiming in Venezuela today for the abolition of private property or a classless society? I don't think so."

Perhaps we should inform Chavez that he's a Maoist. ;D

[ShineThePath]

I tend to agree with most people's statements here, but the claims of the past don't necessarily make what is being said today not true. I mean Mao first was hesitant on Khruschev and the denounciation speech, then attacked it. Did that mean he was lying when he attacked it? Marx at one time wrote long essays defending Christian religion, and then attacked it and supported Atheism. I tend to disagree with the argument that because he claimed something in the past, means he can't possibly mean what he is saying now.