Anarchist critique of Chavez and state socialism

10 posts / 0 new
Last post
wojtek
Offline
Joined: 8-01-11
Jan 29 2011 01:43
Anarchist critique of Chavez and state socialism

I've found what I've seen so far in the way of anarchist criticism quite underwhelming in that it just parrots the corporate media's narrative, i.e. he's a dictator that surpresses critical tv stations, human rights, locks up dissidents, etc. Is there something on the internet that I've not seen?

Thanks

Mark.
Offline
Joined: 11-02-07
Jan 29 2011 02:03

El Libertario?

waslax's picture
waslax
Offline
Joined: 6-12-07
Jan 29 2011 02:08

Hey wojtek

Yes, there is. The text was written by a libertarian communist in Venezuela.

Part One.

Part Two.

Ed's picture
Ed
Offline
Joined: 1-10-03
Jan 29 2011 08:23

Yo wojtek, you could always try the Venezuela tag here on libcom.. we have some of El Libertario's stuff and some others. Also, check out Caiman del Barrio's blog for his perspective on things.. in fact, speaking personally, I'd highly recommend Caiman's blog..

woooo
Offline
Joined: 22-05-08
Feb 2 2011 22:19

also see various links on the real shite practice of 21st century (eco)-socialism ( sic ) here

http://www.delicious.com/dr.woooo/leftwing-of-capital

devoration1's picture
devoration1
Offline
Joined: 18-07-10
Feb 3 2011 07:02

If you're interested, left communists have written many critiques and analyses of Chavez, 'Bolivarism' and Venezuela, such as:

"Chavez Defends Capitalism, Not Socialism"

"Re-Election Of Chavez: Worsening Poverty In The Name Of Socialism"

The group that published the articles linked above also has a section of its organization in Venezuela.

fnbrill's picture
fnbrill
Offline
Joined: 13-01-07
Feb 3 2011 07:46

I would say that the term "state-socialism" is an incorrect as the two are incompatible. What's going on in Venezuela is a form of social democratic state-capitalism.

wojtek
Offline
Joined: 8-01-11
Feb 3 2011 08:28

@devoration1 (or anyone else) - regarding the article 'Chavez defends Capitalism, not Socialism'. I don't understand the passage about Chavez's faux anti-imperialism. I remember Rob Newman sayingh once that the US aren't anymore 'evil' than anyone else they've just got the capability. Are all nation states inherently imperialist then, in that they compete with and therefore dominate one another?

Quote:
The ‘anti-imperialist’ ideology of Chávez is as imperialist as Mr Bush’s ‘war on terrorism’. Both of them carry out the same function: to act as recruiting sergeant for the workers and exploited to give their lives to the capitalist cause.

Can anyone expand on this?

Thanks... I've yet to read all the other links.

Alf's picture
Alf
Offline
Joined: 6-07-05
Feb 3 2011 10:10

"Are all nation states inherently imperialist then, in that they compete with and therefore dominate one another"

Yes, (some) left communists would argue, taking their cue from Rosa Luxemburg in The Junius Pamphlet, that all nation states are imperialist, that we are living in an epoch when every nation state is obliged to engage in the brutal economic and military competition for survival on the world market. Certainly Venezuela under Chavez maintains its own imperialist interests in Latin America, particularly in its conflicts with rival states in the area, such as Colombia

http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2008/apr/tensions-ecuador-colombia

RedEd's picture
RedEd
Offline
Joined: 27-11-10
Feb 9 2011 04:59
wojtek wrote:
Are all nation states inherently imperialist then, in that they compete with and therefore dominate one another?

If states are instruments of minority class control and if a national bourgeoisie forms at least part of that minority class, then of course states vie between themselves to promote, in part, the interests of their respective national bourgeoisies. This is, more or less, imperialism. The mechanism is at work in all states (I would content) but it only gets called imperialism when powerful state-national bourgeoisie alliances act. Imperialism, then, is the aggressive form of a pervasive social relation which stands in a relation of dialectical interdependence to state capitalism ('state capitalism' in the weak sense of capitalism occurring alongside the structure of nation states).