Can we settle the debate about Delcy Rodriguez now? She was probably within a couple kilometers from Maduro and didn’t mention his kidnapping once in her address.
This is completely in line with the previous PSUV position. It’s not even a concession. They have always maintained that they have free and fair elections. She is the rightful legal successor to Maduro, and she is promising to uphold the existing democratic norms of her country. That she isn’t taking an outwardly hostile tone towards the nation which enjoys total military superiority over them during a diplomatic mission at the UN may come across as a betrayal to certain ultra-leftists in the US, but it would seem that the Chavistas in Venezuela do not share the same view.
what’s an “ultra-leftist” to a communist?
It’s a term for those who make dogmatic or adventurist errors in judgement. In practical example, there was the famous theory of “social imperialism” as supposedly practiced by the USSR. This theory did not correctly grasp the nature of imperialism nor the Soviet Union’s actual material processes, but served as a wedge by which those could oppose the Soviet Union while adhering to nominally left politics. Essentially, ultraleftism is confusing allies for enemies, which very frequently turns into its opposite, confusing enemies for allies, like those on the “left” that support NATO against the PRC because the PRC has supposedly “taken the capitalist road.”
left-communists, who are against concessions of any kind, usually with a very idealist vision of socialism. lenin wrote a pamphlet about it “left-wing communism: an infantile disorder”
you can’t make concessions after you capitulate
the PSUV is still in power, isnt it? communes are still functioning?
Ultra-Leftists are typically other communists who are not rooting their actions and methods in material reality. This false consciousness held by ultra-leftists leads to incorrect theoretical and practical conclusions. Conclusions that can endanger the movement itself. Practical concessions need to be made if the reality of the situation demands it. Ultra-Leftism, an Infintile Disorder by Lenin, covers this topic in around 90 pages. Worth reading if you haven’t. Marxism is a living science and, as such, can adapt and evolve as conditions change. To not do so would lead to dogmatism and inflexibility, which undermine the communist movement.
It is the kind of people who will shoot Lenin for Brest-Litovsk treaty.
Usually other communists
well that’s a redundant and liberalist thing to call oneself, unless one isn’t a communist after all
As Lenin said, “one must always strive to be as radical as reality itself.” Radicalism itself isn’t the point, and being radical beyond reality turns from progress into its opposite, reaction. Ineffective strategy hampers the movement, we need to have effective strategy and tactics, and we discover this through the unity of theory and practice, praxis. Peru’s Shining Path is a famous example of confusing allies for enemies, alienating the masses and destroying the movement.
The origin of dogmatism can often be in failing to take an all-sided view of contradictions. Both the totality and the particularity of a contradiction must be viewed to avoid superficiality.
I don’t understand your criticism.
People don’t call themselves ultra leftist. They call other people that when they take positions that are in advance of what’s currently possible as an effective action
For example, advocating for an armed insurrection in the US and gathering a dozen people to storm the Pentagon the next weekend would be ultra leftism.
So that advocate might be a communist, but theyre taking an action that won’t advance the movement and will just get them and their comrades killed.
Ultra leftism is the flip side of tailism or right opportunism
First line:
Rodriguez gives no date for vote despite pledging elections at UN
Lenin’s 1918 Treaty of Brest-Litovsk allowed the USSR to survive.
Furthermore:
Better to die than survive is an orientalist lens that requires no concessions or praxis only the purity in the romantic revolutionary’s heart. Reminds me a little of this:
https://redsails.org/the-sentimental-criticism-of-capitalism/
Personally, I try to view the Chavistas themselves, who the commune movement is supporting, and who is most actively opposing Delcy Rodriguez as my way of viewing the situation. I begin with the class struggle as it actively exists in Venezuela, with the PSUV in charge of what has never been a consolidated revolution. Class struggle is incredibly sharp in Venezuela, with a powerful bourgeoisie that at the moment stands in opposition to the PSUV, while the PSUV still holds support on the ground from the commune movement.
This, to me, spells the actions of the PSUV post-kidnapping as a survival tactic and strategic retreat to hopefully prevent a ground invasion. I do not have a clear-sighted view, but I do have more trust in the fact that on the ground, the commune movement supports the PSUV, while the bourgeoisie still opposes the PSUV. If the PSUV collapses and/or alienates the communes, then we will know that this strategic retreat was incorrect. For now, that moment is not here.
Venezuela is not socialist. It never has established a dictatorship of the proletariat. What it has is a progressive party and an incomplete revolution, one that at the moment most lives on in the commune movement. The PSUV plays a progressive role as long as it continues to have connection with that commune movement and help progress it, essentially forming dual power. This is what makes the Chavista revolution so unique, it’s a combination of a reformist party needing to actually rely on revolutionary dual power structures to continue existing.
The communes are the revolution. The communes are building dual power. The communes have not lost. The PSUV is not an active obstacle to the communes. Anyone that was expecting the PSUV to establish a dictatorship of the proletariat through reformism has a critical misunderstanding about the nature of the capitalist state and the necessity of smashing it and replacing it. It’s more like if the Provisional Government was won by a social democratic group, and the Soviets had not yet built dual power to challenge its legitimacy.
All she has done is promise elections at an undetermined point, which as others have said is consistent PSUV policy.
I don’t know about Rodriguez. It’s easy to believe that she betrayed Maduro, but on the other hand, Venezuela is a nation on her knees, with a knife on her throat. Rodriguez might be a traitor, or she might simply be doing what she can to ensure Venezuela and some legacy of Chavez survives this dark period.
I’d go as far as saying that to be outspoken against US policies in Venezuela is easy to be done from the comfort of a Western home. For Rodriguez, it might mean life or death of her nation. It wouldn’t help anyone to appear less than compliant to a US who is itching to lash out and punish someone for America’s failings in the Middle East.
Personally, I have my suspicions on Rodriguez, but I feel the correct course here is to wait and see what comes out at the end.
I’ve never followed this discussion, but what’s the debate even about? I can’t look into Rodriguez’s head to decide wether she believes in a better future under US dominance or whether she is just forced to play along. Is it just about where to put moral blame? How is that materialist? People on either side of the argument aren’t happy with what’s happening in Venezuela and everyone agrees, that the US is to blame. No one is proposing any serious strategy for how to start an armed anti imperialist struggle after sanctions have crippled the country. We can’t materialize it with wishful thinking either.
Wether under duress or out of conviction: the US will want to see to it, that a comprador ruling class is build up in Venezuela. Such a class would be defined by a material interest in US capital invested within Venezuela plus by it’s political power.
Rather then analyzing speeches, both sides of the argument about how complete the US dominance over Venezuela will be long-term, should instead provide evidence of either the economic establishment of such a ruling comprador class or of effective resistance against it.
For example, if Rodriguez became a stockholder of a US oil firm, that would point towards a comprador ruled future of Venezuela. Or conversely, if it was proven, that the theft of the oil was mostly managed by US Americans living only temporarily in Venezuela, that would be evidence for a more British style of extraction (doubtful, because the US style of imperialism/colonialism strongly relies on compradors).
🫵😂
