Can that be right? I’m currently reading a book on the history of socialism in Russia, which describes Lenin’s heavy-handed attempt to force the preconditions for communism, ignoring democratic opinion or procedure, but resorting to force only in a calculated manner, and empowering the state as a necessary prelude to achieving the preconditions before allowing it to wither away.
That’s a whole lot less than Stalin, of course, who would never have given up his overbearing and brutal state structure, and used violence as a matter of course. But even comparing Lenin to Chavez leaves the latter coming out smelling of nothing but roses. Chavez attempted a coup that was backed (in retrospect) by a majority of the population. He then entered politics with a democratic majority and has maintained and even enlarged that majority with time. He has never resorted to force or violence, and has empowered the state while formalising the beginnings of a parallel, participatory structure intended as a replacement.
I link the Caracas Chronicles blog on this page because on the whole, they make some semblance of sense. But in Quico’s latest post on tyrannicide as explained by Plato, the nonsensical comes into play.
Chavez’s paranoia of an attempt on his life is apparently nothing to do with the half-dozen other Latin American leaders who, in very recent history, have been ‘eliminated’ for pursuing redistributive or otherwise independent (anti-imperial) policies. It’s of course worth mentioning that Allende, Torrijos, Roldos et al. were not topped by concerned members of their respective citizenries, acting alone or in small cells to resist national tyranny. There was no tyranny in the Chile, Panama and Ecuador of those times and there is no tyranny in Venezuela today.
You’ll never hear any of these basic facts when Quico is trying to push his point, however:
And while Chávez is not yet a full-throttle tyrant, he is headed that way. As he keeps shutting doors and eliminating options for the opposition, he knows the probability of engendering his own demise increases.
His point is that should Chavez be assassinated, he had it coming. Should it actually occur, Quico and the opposition will buy the story that the perpetrator was a straight-thinking, middle-of-the-road Venezuelan who was driven by the dictatorial nature of the democratic regime to do it. It would be incomprehensible that the CIA could be involved. That wouldn’t enter into Quico’s thinking as he catches a ride to the party of the decade with a bottle of something special.
These are the people that deny 2002’s coup had anything to do with Washington, let’s remember.
“He has never resorted to force or violence, and has empowered the state while formalising the beginnings of a parallel, participatory structure intended as a replacement.”
Carlos, his coup with 200 dead was violence. Ordering Plan Avila. i.e. the use of Infantry equipped with live ammunition against civilians in 2002 was violence. The continued use of the Tascon List *is* violence, although not physical. Chavez uses violence, to claim that he does not is a lie.
Aside this. You should read the critics by Veneconomy on the work of Eva Golinger. They are 100% correct. checked it myself.
Obviously the 1992 coup involved violence. When peaceful revolution is impossible, violent revolution is inevitable. You shouldn’t have to commit a coup to make yourself electable. Thank heavens they let him have those 30 seconds, eh Tom?
I don’t know what gives so many people on the Left the false — and frankly, ludicrous — idea that it is in any way possible to effect major social revolution without violence. The ruling-class is simply not going to give up its power and privilege without being crushed first. Period.
This disgusting effect of petit-bourgeois liberalism and pacifism on the socialist Left has to go. It’s downright dangerous. Allende and chileans found out the hard way. Lenin only did what he had to do — and no more. And people who criticize him for it are generally political fools, or have an agenda.
Venezuela has yet to have it trial by fire. Let’s always keep that in mind.
You’re right CM, “heavy-handed” is over-exaggerating a little. Just like Chavez, he believed in the people’s capacity to understand the superiority of socialist ideas, and understood that the voluntary participation of the masses was vital to making them a reality.
“You’re right CM, “heavy-handed” is over-exaggerating a little”
Carlos, Lenin is – via the secret police Cheka – directly responsible for up to 500.000 victims of democide between 1918 and his death 1924.
the Cheka committed atrocities such as – but nor limited to – scalping, skinning alive, crwoning with barbed wire, impaling crucification, burning alive, cooking alive and others. Victims included women and children.
In other words, Lenin is a criminal against humanity.
For sources consult Wikipedia.
Tom let’s assume you’re 100% accurate there, though there is plenty of doubt.
What you’re incapable of doing is disassociating the deeds of evil men from their political ideology (unless, of course, they happen to be capitalists). We know of more than a few bloodthirsty dictator capitalists, but I don’t hold that up as evidence that capitalism is a bad system.
Anyway, the evidence in Latin America today is that socialism can take shape with democratic consent. This is what you find it hard to accept, one suspects.
Carlos, the only doubt is about the number of victims. Between 50.000 and 500.000. In any case a horrible crime.
Second, you can not disassociate evil men from their ideology. Their ideology is integral part of their personality, therefore part of their evilness.
Third, as for capitalist dictators. The 20th century “hitlist” of democide is headed by two socialist experiments, followed by Nazi Germany.
Fourth there is *no* evidence in Latin America that socialism can shape with democratic consent. The only socialist country in Latin America is a dictatorship with a magnitude of democide rivaling the worst fascist dictators, the other country is getting more authoritarian every day and – worse – with a total disregard for her own constitution.
Fifth, socialism as state ideology is incompatible with democracy since an integral part of democracy is ideological plurality.
There’s been 10 years of shaping socialism in Venezuela with democratic consent. No signs of slowing down either…
And when I speak of disassociating ideology from evil deeds, I am emphasising that you can have peaceful as well as violent socialists, and peaceful as well as violent capitalists.
The same blindness affects your perception of democracy. Most states have a capitalist ideology, yet you refuse to accept this.