Archives | 2011 November
I just happen to be reading journal articles about the so-called ‘nationalities policy’ that the Soviet regime maintained for decades, and institutionalized throughout its vast territories. These policies, although technically in keeping with the explicitly anti-national**ist** ideology (of communism), **"far from ruthlessly suppressing nationhood, [they] went to unprecedented lengths in institutionalizing and codifying it** ([Rogers Brubaker](http://books.google.com/books?id=ZrV9fnIkgjcC&pg=PA53&lpg=PA53&dq=%22brubaker%22+soviet+%22anti-nationalist%22&source=bl&ots=2bEtu-vjRT&sig=PcbCur_SIf1Xrs8x00mO1iItv0k&hl=en&ei=hQfTTvC_Aons0gGJjKwV&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22brubaker%22%20soviet%20%22anti-nationalist%22&f=false)). Brubaker explains that (due to its institutionalization of nationhood and nationality as basic social categories) the Soviet regime (unintentionally) promoted the rise of nationalism…
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on November 28, 2011
> Our struggle will prevail once we begin not only to deplore or condemn but also to interrupt the mechanisms that exploit the labour and resources of the immense majority. When workers withhold their labour or take control of their workplace, when the unemployed refuse the exclusion to which they are condemned, when students refuse to pay their fees and debts, when immigrants rebel against discrimination, when householders defend their homes against foreclosure – when civil disobedience and noncompliance acquires a depth and scale that no police operation can break – then the fundamental isolation of the tendential 1% will be exposed for all to see. tactics include a mix of strikes, blockades, sit-ins, boycotts and "stayaways": >In addition to the example set in northern Africa earlier this year, at this juncture we might do well to remember some of the tactics developed at the other pole of that continent in an earlier assertion of "people power": the mix of strikes, blockades, sit-ins, boycotts and "stayaways" organised in the mid-1980s by South Africa’s UDF and other grassroots organisations as part of a struggle to render their country "ungovernable". Situations vary, but a collective determination to interrupt work or school, to blockade an institution or a university, to withhold payment of rents and debts, can take all kinds of forms in all kinds of places. Stayaways can concentrate around a particular site, or spread through emulation towards a mass strike. There are few logistical limits on participation in a stayaway, and as participants invent the forms of organisation required to sustain them their duration can range from a symbolic interruption of work or class to an indefinite boycott, walk-out or shut-down.
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on November 27, 2011
File this under the news and information about the former Libyan regime (led by Gadaffi) that, I’m sure by complete accident, the U.S. media failed to report during the run up to war.
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on November 24, 2011
First of all, I’ve never seen any evidence or any allegations (from either human rights organizations or political opposition groups) that the Venezuelan President has ever threatened–or taken–the lives of anyone for speaking out against him (or revealing details/spreading lies about his condition)–or for any other reason. As you may know, at the end of October, many newspapers reported that Chavez had only "two years to live". The source of this news was Salvador Navarrete, who claimed to have been either Chavez’s personal surgeon from 2002 until earlier this year or, according to other sources, part of Chavez’s medical team until 2002. Chavez responded by calling Navarrete a "big fat liar", who has not seen his recent medical tests, and therefore lacked any basis for making his "two year" prognosis. Navarrete fled the country. Why? Out of embarassment for being caught lying, or was there a genuine threat? Typically the only people who flee Venezuela are banking executives or public officials seeking to avoid criminal prosecution under fraud or corruption charges. The other source of news about the Chavez’s declining health is Roger Noriega. He relies extensively on anonymous sources, and, for reasons I won’t get into, I don’t believe a word of anything he says.
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on November 20, 2011
First of all, I’ve never seen any evidence or any allegations (from either human rights organizations or political opposition groups) that the Venezuelan President has ever threatened–or taken–the lives of anyone for speaking out against him (or revealing details/spreading lies about his condition)–or for any other reason. As you may know, at the end of October, many newspapers reported that Chavez had only "two years to live". The source of this news was Salvador Navarrete, who claimed to have been either Chavez’s personal surgeon from 2002 until earlier this year or, according to other sources, part of Chavez’s medical team until 2002. Chavez responded by calling Navarrete a "big fat liar", who has not seen his recent medical tests, and therefore lacked any basis for making his "two year" prognosis. Navarrete fled the country. Why? Out of embarassment for being caught lying, or was there a genuine threat? Typically the only people who flee Venezuela are banking executives or public officials seeking to avoid criminal prosecution under fraud or corruption charges. The other source of news about the Chavez’s declining health is Roger Noriega. He relies extensively on anonymous sources, and, for reasons I won’t get into, I don’t believe a word of anything he says.
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
If Chavez is receiving the same medical care that the 85-year old Castro has enjoyed in Cuba, then there’s a good chance he too will survive to a ripe old age.
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
If Chavez is receiving the same medical care that the 85-year old Castro has enjoyed in Cuba, then there’s a good chance he too will survive to a ripe old age.
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
[This article](http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/18/spain-election-indignant-idUSL5E7MH2F020111118) provides some helpful info on the current situation in Spain in the run up to [the election this Sunday](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_general_election,_2011): polls predict a victory of the centre-right People’s Party (PP) over the ruling Socialists (PSOE). >The Indignant movement has urged Spaniards not to vote for the two main political parties, who have alternated in power since the end of the Franco dictatorship and the return to democracy in 1978. >[T]he main winner from the Indignados call not to vote for the main parties is likely to be the PP, whose path towards an absolute majority may be cleared by a protest vote against the Socialists. I guess I can see why some would criticize this strategy since it’s gonna lead to center-right victory. Maybe it’s not too early to start discussing what stance the OWS movement should take with regard to the 2012 elections.
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
[This article](http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/18/spain-election-indignant-idUSL5E7MH2F020111118) provides some helpful info on the current situation in Spain in the run up to [the election this Sunday](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_general_election,_2011): polls predict a victory of the centre-right People’s Party (PP) over the ruling Socialists (PSOE). >The Indignant movement has urged Spaniards not to vote for the two main political parties, who have alternated in power since the end of the Franco dictatorship and the return to democracy in 1978. >[T]he main winner from the Indignados call not to vote for the main parties is likely to be the PP, whose path towards an absolute majority may be cleared by a protest vote against the Socialists. I guess I can see why some would criticize this strategy since it’s gonna lead to center-right victory. Maybe it’s not too early to start discussing what stance the OWS movement should take with regard to the 2012 elections.
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
Who even bothers to keep track of [this sectarian bullshit](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Trotskyist_internationals#Active)? *Headache*
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
Who even bothers to keep track of [this sectarian bullshit](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Trotskyist_internationals#Active)? *Headache*
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
Good for you in the opposition to decide finally to play fair and according to the rules! (Just joking, btw)
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
I’m having trouble (due to the poor translation) discerning whether there is any new information in this article, or if this is just another rumor/wishing thinking by Chavez’s enemies. Can anyone figure out who this article cites as its source for this latest prognosis?
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
Some people will be surprised to learn that the Western media used to portray Saif Gadaffi in a fairly positive light, up until quite recently. For example, in [February 2010, the New York Times](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/01/world/middleeast/01libya.html) described him as "**the Western-friendly face of Libya and symbol of its hopes for reform and openness**". So there’s a bit of tragic element to the story, since–[as TIME Magazine reports (today)](http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2099890,00.html) "Saif had opportunities to join the rebellion against his father. But he refused every one and turned against the rebels instead." I have more on this reversal–from potential reformer to ruthless defender of his father’s regime–in [my previous comment here](http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/mhzag/gaddafis_son_captured_in_libya/c315iza).
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
Of course not! I’m a grad student.. that (suggesting plagiarism is a crime against humanity) was my little joke. My point is that this is something of a tragic story because Saif was once regarded as **"a symbol of Libya’s hopes for reform and openness"** ([New York Times, February 28, 2010](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/01/world/middleeast/01libya.html)). A [TIME Magazine article (dated today)](http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2099890,00.html) reads: "according to one aide, *Saif had opportunities to join the rebellion against his father. But he refused every one and turned against the rebels instead*."
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
Some people here may be surprised to learn that, for years–right up to the start of the Libyan crisis–Saif Gaddafi *was portrayed* as a potential "GOOD GUY" by the Western (mainstream news) media, with many ‘experts’ saying they expected Saif to usher in democratic reforms after inheriting power from his father. I remember they made a big deal about his speaking perfect English and having a Israeli girlfriend (which suggested that he wasn’t anti-semitic)! My point is, until quite recently, Saif was commonly described by the international press as a liberal democratic reformer, a "prominent public figure *[widely respected in the West for his democratic and humanitarian credentials](http://rt.com/news/libya-saif-gaddafi-war-593/)*", who, [according to Reuters](http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/27/us-libya-gaddafi-saif-idUSTRE79P66W20111027), "**pushed for reform, including more media freedom, acknowledgement of past rights abuses and the adoption of a constitution**". He did not have a long history of crimes. His ‘downfall’ started when the LSE started looking into allegations that he [plagiarized his Ph.D. dissertation](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-12608869). From there it was only a short jump to "crimes against humanity". (JOKE!) All I’m saying is *his decent into ‘evil’ was sudden and unexpected*–[there are elements of tragedy here](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/benjamin-r-barber/libya-gadhafi-future_b_826718.html). Edit: I’m not saying that I agree with the previous commenter that Saif "was a good guy"! I’m saying that it’s quite strange, to look back now and see how often Saif *was portrayed as a ‘good guy’* by the Western media! * November 19, 2011, [Time Magazine](http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2099890,00.html): **Up until the moment Libya descended into catastrophic violence last February**, Saif al-Islam Gaddafi was under strong pressure by close associates to break ranks with his father’s regime. They believed that he, more than anyone else, might have been able to save his country from a disastrous eight-month war… [At the time] many Libyans would still have accepted Saif at the person best able to stop Libya’s descent into all-out violence, and the single best hope to persuade his father to retire in exile. "Libyans were banking on Saif," he says. "*He was widely accepted by intellectuals, activists, and the liberal opposition in the diaspora*." [...] In interviews, **Saif told me in Feb. 2010 and in March this year that his strong efforts to bring democracy to Libya** had been stymied by Gaddafi’s regime. Now, Saif’s final role will instead be as a reviled defendant on trial, rather than a political hero, and he could face life imprisonment or execution. Around the time that civil war broke out: * April 9, 2011, [Huffington Post](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/09/saif-gaddafi-libya_n_846808.html): **"Saif Gaddafi: His Father’s Son Or Libya’s Reformer?"** * April 12, 2011, [The Guardian](http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/13/saif-gaddafi-real-reformer-inside), Benjamin Barber: **"Yes, Saif is a Gaddafi. But there’s still a real reformer inside**. The dictator’s son I know is **torn between family and democracy**. We must engage with Saif’s better instincts, for Libya’s sake." A sampling of NYT stories dated earlier: * August 8, 2008, [New York Times](http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/22/world/africa/22iht-libya.5.15563698.html): In his speech, Seif al-Islam Qaddafi, dressed in a dark business suit, **called for political reforms to better regulate Libya’s system by rule of law, guaranteeing democracy, an independent press and human rights**, "without harming the Jamahiriya system." * February 28, 2010, [New York Times](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/01/world/middleeast/01libya.html): ["Opening up a closed economy, taking on the legacy of your father, and fighting an entrenched bureacracy"] "is the goal of Seif al-Islam el-Qaddafi, the son and possible successor to Libya’s leader, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, as **he sets out to dismantle a legacy of Socialism and authoritarianism introduced by his father 40 years ago"**. >"It is hard work reinventing a country,” he said in an interview last month, as he slouched on a sofa in his villa in the hills above Tripoli, picking at a tray of fruit including fresh dates brought to him by a black-suited waiter. “But that is what we are doing. We will have *a new constitution, new laws, a commercial and business code* and now a flat tax of 15 percent.” In the last few years, Mr. Qaddafi, 37, who has a doctorate from the London School of Economics, flawless English and a bold independent streak, has emerged as the **Western-friendly face of Libya and symbol of its hopes for reform and openness**.
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on November 19, 2011
Some people here may be surprised to learn that, for years–right up to the start of the Libyan crisis–Saif Gaddafi *was portrayed* as a potential "GOOD GUY" by the Western (mainstream news) media, with many ‘experts’ saying they expected Saif to usher in democratic reforms after inheriting power from his father. I remember they made a big deal about his speaking perfect English and having a Israeli girlfriend (which suggested that he wasn’t anti-semitic)! My point is, until quite recently, Saif was commonly described by the international press as a liberal democratic reformer, a "prominent public figure *[widely respected in the West for his democratic and humanitarian credentials](http://rt.com/news/libya-saif-gaddafi-war-593/)*", who, [according to Reuters](http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/27/us-libya-gaddafi-saif-idUSTRE79P66W20111027), "**pushed for reform, including more media freedom, acknowledgement of past rights abuses and the adoption of a constitution**". He did not have a long history of crimes. His ‘downfall’ started when the LSE started looking into allegations that he [plagiarized his Ph.D. dissertation](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-12608869). From there it was only a short jump to "crimes against humanity". (JOKE!) All I’m saying is *his decent into ‘evil’ was sudden and unexpected*–[there are elements of tragedy here](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/benjamin-r-barber/libya-gadhafi-future_b_826718.html). Edit: I’m not saying that I agree with the previous commenter that Saif "was a good guy"! I’m saying that it’s quite strange, to look back now and see how often Saif *was portrayed as a ‘good guy’* by the Western media! * November 19, 2011, [Time Magazine](http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2099890,00.html): **Up until the moment Libya descended into catastrophic violence last February**, Saif al-Islam Gaddafi was under strong pressure by close associates to break ranks with his father’s regime. They believed that he, more than anyone else, might have been able to save his country from a disastrous eight-month war… [At the time] many Libyans would still have accepted Saif at the person best able to stop Libya’s descent into all-out violence, and the single best hope to persuade his father to retire in exile. "Libyans were banking on Saif," he says. "*He was widely accepted by intellectuals, activists, and the liberal opposition in the diaspora*." [...] In interviews, **Saif told me in Feb. 2010 and in March this year that his strong efforts to bring democracy to Libya** had been stymied by Gaddafi’s regime. Now, Saif’s final role will instead be as a reviled defendant on trial, rather than a political hero, and he could face life imprisonment or execution. Around the time that civil war broke out: * April 9, 2011, [Huffington Post](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/09/saif-gaddafi-libya_n_846808.html): **"Saif Gaddafi: His Father’s Son Or Libya’s Reformer?"** * April 12, 2011, [The Guardian](http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/13/saif-gaddafi-real-reformer-inside), Benjamin Barber: **"Yes, Saif is a Gaddafi. But there’s still a real reformer inside**. The dictator’s son I know is **torn between family and democracy**. We must engage with Saif’s better instincts, for Libya’s sake." A sampling of NYT stories dated earlier: * August 8, 2008, [New York Times](http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/22/world/africa/22iht-libya.5.15563698.html): In his speech, Seif al-Islam Qaddafi, dressed in a dark business suit, **called for political reforms to better regulate Libya’s system by rule of law, guaranteeing democracy, an independent press and human rights**, "without harming the Jamahiriya system." * February 28, 2010, [New York Times](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/01/world/middleeast/01libya.html): ["Opening up a closed economy, taking on the legacy of your father, and fighting an entrenched bureacracy"] "is the goal of Seif al-Islam el-Qaddafi, the son and possible successor to Libya’s leader, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, as **he sets out to dismantle a legacy of Socialism and authoritarianism introduced by his father 40 years ago"**. >"It is hard work reinventing a country,” he said in an interview last month, as he slouched on a sofa in his villa in the hills above Tripoli, picking at a tray of fruit including fresh dates brought to him by a black-suited waiter. “But that is what we are doing. We will have *a new constitution, new laws, a commercial and business code* and now a flat tax of 15 percent.” In the last few years, Mr. Qaddafi, 37, who has a doctorate from the London School of Economics, flawless English and a bold independent streak, has emerged as the **Western-friendly face of Libya and symbol of its hopes for reform and openness**.
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
i think it was a good move for Zizek to come right out and condemn 20th century communism as a ”total failure”. actually, in a recent interview (which i don’t mind transcribing) he calls it ”*the greatest catastrophe in the history of humanity–worse than fascism*–precisely **because it started with such hopes and ended in a nightmare**. in fascism we have bad guys who said our program is to do bad things and—what a surprise—they took power and they did bad things! but **in [20th century] communism, you have authentic tragedy**, that’s why you have dissidents, inner struggles, [sectarian squabbles] etc.” this is a good move because it puts him in a nice position to argue persuasively that *only a good honest communist (like himself) can truly understand the ”horrible things done in the name of communism”*. ironically, this opens up the possibility of upholding some of the achievements of past struggles for communism, while pointing to its shortcomings. somehow by laying claim to the legacy of these past struggles, he makes it seem politically possible, even respectable, to call oneself a communist again!
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
Who would you like to run for president? And what is your opinion of the political opposition to Chavez? What do you think will be its strategy?
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
Both have done excellent work. Also, probably the best english language resource on the internet for news and info on Venezuela’s socialist revolution can be found at [venezuelanalysis.com](http://venezuelanalysis.com), which is run by Wilpert.
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
It’s inspiring to see the Bolivarian Revolution continue on. >With 62% of all new housing in Venezuela completed in the public sector so far this year, as compared with only 30% in 2009, the share of Venezuela’s public sector in the nation’s house building industry has more than doubled in two years. >Furthermore, of housing constructed by the public sector so far this year, 48% (28,202) was undertaken with the participation of grassroots “popular power” initiatives, particularly the Integral Participation of Habitats (TIH) and Substitution of Shanties for Houses (Suvi) programmes. >Communal councils throughout the country have also been encouraged by the government to form “construction communes” and contribute to house building programs in their local communities. >When the Great Housing Mission was launched, Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez stressed the importance of *grassroots participation* for the program’s success, stating “**nobody knows how to build houses better than the people…if we want to put an end to poverty, then we must give power to the poor. This is the main principle of the socialist revolution**”.
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on November 18, 2011
Despite the opposition’s effort to paint Chavez as a military dictator, the President has been understandably reluctant to send in the military to do the job reserved for the police. The last time this was done was during a [tragic historical incident known as the *Caracazo* in 1989](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caracazo), when President Carlos Andres Perez sent the military to put down the wave of protests, riots, and looting that erupted across Venezuela in response to neoliberal, pro-market reforms (which President CAP had previously sworn not to introduce). This incident led to the collapse of popular support for the Punto Fijo (pre-Chavez) government, since it was led by elites who thought nothing of ordering soldiers from poor backgrounds to assault ordinary men and women, their brothers and sisters, who were fighting economic injustice. Lieutenant Colonel Hugo Chavez refused to participate.
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
i must point you to one of the few places in all of marx’s writings where he describes a little bit about what a future communist society might be like. you’ll be happy to know marx here is addressing precisely your concern, the question you’re asking about here… >…For as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. *[In capitalist society] He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood*; while **in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes**, society regulates the general production and thus **makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner**, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic. [[The German Ideology](http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm)] he’s saying that the lack of flexibility is associated with (not socialism (i don’t think) and definitely not communism) but capitalism, where you really might be doing one thing for your whole life. clearly, marx does believe under communism you can "shift from job to job", see "hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, …criticize after dinner.." Update: What, I get a downvote for quoting Marx in this subreddit? Update: Someone teased me about my comment karma and now I’m a wee bit sensitive. Thanks.
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on November 17, 2011
This is a bogus rumor that started when Forbes magazine claimed Fidel Castro was among the world’s richest people [because he owned everything in the entire country of Cuba](http://amte.wordpress.com/2009/10/03/is-fidel-castro-one-of-the-richest-men-in-the-world/). Castro himself challenged the claim, and called for evidence of his alleged wealth… >Even the Miami Herald, a rightwing newspaper with ties to the Cuban-American mafia that is historically hostile to the Cuban Revolution admits that **Fidel Castro lives in about the same conditions as everyone else in Cuba**. The newspaper has previously printed articles in which it acknowledges that “*The houses of Fidel and Raúl are large but simply appointed*…. The living room of [Fidel’s] house is described by visitors as furnished with simple wood and leather sofas and chairs and Cuban handicrafts…. The only luxury visible to visitors is a big-screen television….” ([some blog, but good enough](http://amte.wordpress.com/2009/10/03/is-fidel-castro-one-of-the-richest-men-in-the-world/).)
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
I applaud your ability to look at Chavez from such a reasonable position. While I agree with you that, Venezuela still has its problems (some major), I think some of the problems you listed (specifically, those having to do with the current state of the justice system in Venezuela) deserve to be considered from an alternative perspective. An Al-Jazeera article from three days ago reports that *[Hundreds of Chavez supporters have been assassinated by wealthy landowners for implementing new land policies.](http://aljazeera.co.uk/indepth/opinion/2011/11/201111810548458225.html)* But these landowners have enjoyed impunity because "the justice system remains rigged in favour of the Venezuelan one per cent (to use the Occupy Wall Street terminology) who originally constructed it (decades ago). >"The legal system in Venezuela, despite the international media’s misinterpretations, is still, in many cases, very much in the hands of the middle and upper classes. Most of these people have their roots in the power structures of Punto Fijismo – that’s to say, the ancien regime. >"The majority of lawyers and judges share the same cultural background and class origins as the landowners and latifundistas. They went to the same schools and universities, visit the same clubs and drink the same whisky, regardless of whether or not they don a red hat at a rally. So what you have is a system run and controlled by money." Think of this article everytime you hear complaints about Chavez interfering with the courts!
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
This Al-Jazeera article from *three days ago* paints a very different picture, one that has been virtually blacked out by the international press: "[Impunity for Venezuela's big landowners](http://aljazeera.co.uk/indepth/opinion/2011/11/201111810548458225.html)": **[Hundreds of Chavez supporters have been assassinated by wealthy landowners for implementing new land policies](http://aljazeera.co.uk/indepth/opinion/2011/11/201111810548458225.html)**. >According to figures provided by [the International Crisis Group's report on the problem of violent crime in Venezuela](http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/latin-america-caribbean/andes/venezuela/038-violence-and-politics-in-venezuela.aspx), **the vast majority of people killed in political violence since 1999 have been Chavez supporters**. Hundreds of peasants have been murdered–by hired gunmen and right wing paramilitaries–for attempting to implement a new land reform policy that is high priority for a government eager to end Venezuela’s dependence on food imports. The fact that wealthy landowners have, with impunity, been able to assassinate hundreds of Chavistas speaks volumes about the power of the rich and their capacity for violence. … >Chavez opponents are well positioned – as state governors, mayors, legislators, judges and police chiefs – to exacerbate violent crime in general. *The former Caracas Metropolitan police, for example, openly collaborated with the short-lived coup that briefly deposed Chavez in 2002*. [[I'm skipping some good stuff here...](http://aljazeera.co.uk/indepth/opinion/2011/11/201111810548458225.html)] … >Despite these dramatically revealing facts, it is inconceivable that a prominent, well-funded NGO such as the ICG (or any mainstream news-media outlet) would ever write: "**Violence, or its threat, has become inherent to the elite opposition’s political project in Venezuela**" even though it would be far closer to the truth. Edited: to clean up citation.
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
This Al-Jazeera article from three days ago paints a very different picture, one that has been virtually blacked out by the international press: “Impunity for Venezuela’s big landowners”: Hundreds of Chavez supporters have been assassinated by wealthy landowners for implementing new land policies.
According to figures provided by the International Crisis Group’s report on the problem of violent crime in Venezuela, the vast majority of people killed in political violence since 1999 have been Chavez supporters. Hundreds of peasants have been murdered–by hired gunmen and right wing paramilitaries–for attempting to implement a new land reform policy that is high priority for a government eager to end Venezuela’s dependence on food imports. The fact that wealthy landowners have, with impunity, been able to assassinate hundreds of Chavistas speaks volumes about the power of the rich and their capacity for violence.
…
Chavez opponents are well positioned – as state governors, mayors, legislators, judges and police chiefs – to exacerbate violent crime in general. The former Caracas Metropolitan police, for example, openly collaborated with the short-lived coup that briefly deposed Chavez in 2002. [I’m skipping some good stuff here…]
…
Despite these dramatically revealing facts, it is inconceivable that a prominent, well-funded NGO such as the ICG (or any mainstream news-media outlet) would ever write: “Violence, or its threat, has become inherent to the elite opposition’s political project in Venezuela” even though it would be far closer to the truth.
i don’t disagree with that. a revolution need not be violent, but don’t be so sure those elites who benefit from the corrupt status quo won’t use violence to keep things the way they are. in my view, we’ve got to "fight" to present people with an alternative to the status quo, otherwise they’re likely to stick with what they’ve got.
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
i don’t disagree with that. a revolution need not be violent, but don’t be so sure those elites who benefit from the corrupt status quo won’t use violence to keep things the way they are. in my view, we’ve got to "fight" to present people with an alternative to the status quo, otherwise they’re likely to stick with what they’ve got.
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
but aren’t we in a better position today to solve what were the flaws of 20th century communism, namely, those associated with the difficulties inherent to centralized-planning by imagining new non-market alternatives? Update: I don’t enjoy receiving downvotes without an explanation!
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
but aren’t we in a better position today to solve what were the flaws of 20th century communism, namely, those associated with the difficulties inherent to centralized-planning by imagining new non-market alternatives? Update: I don’t enjoy receiving downvotes without an explanation!
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
Why do people hate Chavez? Because they were told "if you hate Castro, you should hate Chavez also". Why do people hate Castro? Because they were told "if you hate Communism, you should hate Castro also." Why do people hate Communism? Because they were told more bullshit to keep them working as slaves to Capitalism.
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
Why do people hate Chavez? Because they were told "if you hate Castro, you should hate Chavez also". Why do people hate Castro? Because they were told "if you hate Communism, you should hate Castro also." Why do people hate Communism? Because they were told more bullshit to keep them working as slaves to Capitalism.
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
all we need now is to schedule a communist revolution before the next congressional election.
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
all we need now is to schedule a communist revolution before the next congressional election.
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
what’s funny is that you’d never have thought to evaluate a president in terms of how much he has done for the poor during past decades when the government was run by punto fijo elites, that is to say, before the people elected hugo chavez as their president, and re-prioritized government in favor of the poor rather than the rich.
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on November 16, 2011
what’s funny is that you’d never have thought to evaluate a president in terms of how much he has done for the poor during past decades when the government was run by punto fijo elites, that is to say, before the people elected hugo chavez as their president, and re-prioritized government in favor of the poor rather than the rich.
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
The irony here is that the mural that Rivera painted for Ford is arguably MORE MARXIST than the one depicting Lenin and Trotsky that he painted for Rockefeller. It is also more beautiful–I’m glad it wasn’t destroyed!
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on November 15, 2011
The irony here is that the mural that Rivera painted for Ford is arguably MORE MARXIST than the one depicting Lenin and Trotsky that he painted for Rockefeller. It is also more beautiful–I’m glad it wasn’t destroyed!
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
It’s sad that the amazing truth about the Bolivarian revolution has failed to get out: the leader of a failed coup attempt became so popular in this country that he could abandon armed struggle as a strategy, take power and pursue his revolutionary agenda through peaceful legal means. Since then, the Bolivarian government has been ‘on the side’ of the people, and the elites who previously ran everything have resorted to illegal anti-government violence to safeguard their extreme wealth and privileges. Usually it’s the other way around…
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on November 14, 2011
It’s sad that the amazing truth about the Bolivarian revolution has failed to get out: the leader of a failed coup attempt became so popular in this country that he could abandon armed struggle as a strategy, take power and pursue his revolutionary agenda through peaceful legal means. Since then, the Bolivarian government has been ‘on the side’ of the people, and the elites who previously ran everything have resorted to illegal anti-government violence to safeguard their extreme wealth and privileges. Usually it’s the other way around…
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
I suppose it’s true that Venezuela is more deadly than Iraq [...if don't accurately measure the magnitude of death toll in Iraq](http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/5591)! But regardless it’s a bit dishonest to attribute the rise in crime rates to anything that Chavez has done as President. Even his opponents will admit that drug-gang-related violence has long been a problem (and historical records confirm this), that the Chavez government is fighting just as hard to stop/lower rates as can be expected. OK, he has expressed sympathy with the Marxist ideology that motivates members of the FARC, but has so far notably and consistently rejected armed struggle as a means for achieving revolution, and has encouraged them to continue negotiations and adopt a political strategy. Venezuela isn’t a perfect country, and Chavez isn’t a perfect President. But the truth is that the 21st century socialism isn’t the disaster some are claiming it to be.
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
Yes, I agree with this. It seems to me that the misuse of this word is not an innocent (or necessarily intention or unintentional) mistake, but often symptomatic of individuals affected by this addiction (greed). It makes sense that ‘defenders of greed’ will *incorrectly define* greed as "necessary" (often a part of human nature, they say) rather than as "excessive or rapacious" (which is its actual definition) if you understand that they may simply be trying to justify such ‘excessiveness’ on their part. In *roughly* analogous way, an alcoholic seeking to conceal his addiction will often deny that his/her drinking is ‘excessive’, but rather ‘moderate’ or ‘normal’, even ‘healthy’! Perhaps, more accurately, the analogy would be an alcoholic redefining ‘alcoholism’ as the normal drinking of alcohol, but now I’m getting away from my point… I have a real problem with this misuse because it is often coupled with the cynical claim that ‘everyone’ (who is successful, or at least trying to be) is driven by greed (and thus as selfish as the worst CEOs). As far as I know, most people I know who constitute the 99% are just working for ‘sufficient’ living conditions; they have nowhere near enough stuff to be called ‘greedy’ by these assholes (even while they’re still better off than folks living in the Global South, one must admit)! They desire (literally) a ‘[living wage](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage)’. I would bet a CEO’s salary that most people are driven simply to earn enough to feed themselves and support their families, not to buy ferraris!
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
How long has it been since Communism was tried and failed by a "new generation of Marxists"? At least 30, if not 50 years or more! Given how much capitalist society has changed in the last 30-50 years, is it unreasonable to expect that a *communist* society of the 21st century would also be different from its 1950-60s form? Especially in light of Marx’s view of communism as a *post-capitalist* stage of society, one might consider how new capitalist advancements of the last 30-50 years, including the internet and related technologies, could be used for implementing more democratic collective decision-making, for overcoming troubles that plagued socialist experiments in the 20th century, and for applying lessons learned from the admitted failures and tragedies associated with that historical experience. There is little reason to believe that a re-invented Communism would need to resemble its past Soviet form, much less suffer the same fate. EDIT: Revised, in the hope of receiving comments, not just downvotes, from those who disagree. Edit: Starting to pile on the downvotes now, not even caring to explain. Awesome. :’(
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on November 9, 2011
Das Einheitsfrontlied is probably my favorite. But [Der heimliche Aufmarsch](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPKH4GHiihg) and [Das Solidaritätslied](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B51HI0MPUrQ) (also with Ernst Busch) also should not be forgotten. *Forward, and never forgetting // What our strength consists of! // While starving and while eating, // Forward, never forgetting // Solidarity!*
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on