Chávez' legacy: the defense of capital and the deception of the impoverished masses

7 posts / 0 new
Last post
Fred
Chávez' legacy: the defense of capital and the deception of the impoverished masses
Printer-friendly version

The discussion that follows was prompted by the article: Chávez' legacy: the defense of capital and the deception of the impoverished masses. The discussion was initiated by Fred.
Below is the discussion so far. Feel free to add your own comments!

Fred
Ideological vomit

So even the great Chavez died eventually. In what did his greatness lie? Why in leftism. In his phenomenal talent as a liar and confusionist; in his invention of "21st. Century Socialism " with which he and his bourgeois clique were able to persuade the poorest poor that one day they could be rich, if only they would wait and starve patiently. Even though, according to Chavez, in other speeches, being rich was evil!  What a giant for decadent capitalism this great leader was; far surpassing the North Korean Kim dynasty, for didn't even Western democracies take him seriously?  With the charisma of a pop star he was able to spread his ideological vomit,  and have it lapped up like it was an  elixir of the gods. Indeed did he not become god-like too; able to make the abject poverty of unemployment and the misery of being in ill-paid work  the very stuff of nascent socialism, and the path to the Kingdom of Heaven, where Chavez also perpetually smiled and reigned no doubt.  How the bourgeoisie will miss him. 

But, we have to ask, what was the secret of his success? 

A quote now from this excellent article by the Venzuelan section of the ICC.

Quote:
 His great secret, recognised by a good part of the world bourgeoisie, was that he was able to renew the hopes of the immense masses of the abandoned poor in Venezuela, bring them in from the cold, making them believe that one day they would be able to get away from their poverty. In reality, what has happened is that the whole population has become impoverished, the workers above all, through the application of the left's principal of ‘levelling from below’. In this way Chávismo managed to contain the social unrest of the mass of the poor, a social layer produced by the course of decadent capitalism throughout the 20th century, when it has been increasingly impossible to incorporate them into productive work.
 

 

Ah! So the secret to socialist success is shared poverty, a generalized misery and impoverishment. The population attain the heady heights of socialism, not from the shared communal bounties that spring from being freed from capitalist austerity and decadence, but from the shared misery of being "equal" that is to say, leveled from below.  

What a thinker, what a leader, this Hugo Chavez was. How he will be missed.

Fred
Fred wrote about Chavez: ..."

Fred wrote about Chavez: ..." did he not become god-like too; able to make the abject poverty of unemployment and the misery of being in ill-paid work  the very stuff of nascent socialism, and the path to the Kingdom of Heaven..."

Careless talk Fred.  The poverty, unemployment and misery of workers in ill-paid work, are indeed part of the very stuff of nascent socialism!  But there was no socialism, nascent or otherwise, in what  Chavez was doing.  The deception he was able to pull off involved enormous trickery, whereby it appeared that the the exploited and depressed were on the verge of something better - 21st Century Socialism - but it was all leftism and a lie. 

There is something so slimy and disgusting, so cleverly sick, about leftism, that even to try and talk about it  can lead to trouble and confused speech for some of us. I apologize for my mistake above.  But there are no such errors emanating from our comrades in Venezuela: their placing of leftism is dead on target. 

Fred
more vomit

To prove to all the workers it screws and shits all over, that the paradise in which they live is really and truly SOCIALISM.  It's ideological vomit again. Be careful not to slip over on it. 

Demogorgon
It would help if perhaps you

It would help if perhaps you could explain in more detail the relevance of your link ....

petey
holding on to power

the idea that chavismo is anything other than machine politics will have to defend itself against this sort of thing:

http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2013/may/08/chavismo-after-chavez/

 

Fred
Thanks for the link petey:

Thanks for the link petey: it's an amusing read. The crazed antics of the bourgeoisie clinging to power are always fun to read; especially when one of the biggest insults they can find to fling at each other is the fact that the other side is "bourgeois". They also accuse each other of being "murderers" but that's hardly an insult is it? Truth will out you may say.

 Here's a curious section.. 

Quote:
.What Venezuelans may remember most about last month’s presidential campaign is the moment right at the start, when Nicolás Maduro Moros, the late Hugo Chávez’s chosen successor, told a television audience that the supreme comandante had come back to him in the shape of a little bird and, chirping, urged him on to victory. There was also the time he promised that an ancient Indian curse would fall on those who voted for the opposition candidate, Henrique Capriles Radonski, and the rallies at which Maduro, seeking to give substance to the slogan “Chávez lives!” produced a hapless little man, or boy, who was indeed the spitting image of the departed comandante. There was the sight of the hulking and excruciatingly self-conscious Maduro—by some accounts a sober and thoughtful man in private life—trying to channel the spirit of the man he now calls “father” by singing, dancing, and even rapping in front of equally embarrassed crowds.
   So how does a man the New York Review of Books credits with being a "sober and thoughtful  man in private life"  get to be such a crazed idiot in public?  Is there no limit to what the power-hungry bourgeois will do for more power?  And Maduro of course being a bourgeois-socialist to boot! Perhaps it's the conflict between having to hide your true bourgeois nature, and somehow tart it up as "socialism", that triggers the lunatic lapses in the shape of chirping birds bearing messages of victory (these  birds being  nothing less than reincarnations  of the great Hugo himself); the application of ancient Indian curses to all who oppose your  democratic triumph ( this is starting to sound like Hollywood)  and the sudden manifestation of living and miraculous images of the great Hugo again,  but in diminutive form ( was everybody on mescaline?)  This whole "democratic" pantomime  reached its amazing conclusion - not with Henry the Horse dancing the waltz - but with candidate Maduro turning out to be a song-and-dance man himself. So much for bourgeois and "socialist" democracy. A splendid time was guaranteed for all.  Or was it?  The crowd is said to have been as embarrassed as the performing candidate himself. But were they taken in?  Do they really believe "chavismo" and its demeaning antics to be the same as socialism?  <p>    The only comfort we may be able to take from this truly remarkable demonstration of SPECTACLE, apart from the tragi- comedy of it all, is that if the bourgeoisie in all its forms, is prepared to go to such lengths in attempting to deceive the working class that there's nothing more socialistic than a left-wing bourgeois, then perhaps all is not lost, and the working class still remains an active if somewhat subdued  threat to capitalist rule. <p>     ACADEMIC NOTE.  Reincarnation in bird form is a common occurrence in S. America, and not just in myth. That Chavez should choose to re-appear as "a little bird, chirping", rather than as a large golden  eagle for example, may be a sign of his modesty.  On the other hand, the magic and peyote required for a successful transformation may have gone amiss.  Compare the "chirping" in this case, with that of Long John Silver's parrot, which was capable of loud shrieks, and used regularly to scream "pieces of eight: pieces of eight."  This obsession by Silver's parrot with money and finance is notably absent in the reincarnated Hugo bird, which does perhaps raise questions of authenticity in the latter case.