Jump to content

 

 

Brexit - the big vote


Recommended Posts

Compare and contrast: Labour and Russia respond to Venezuela’s crisis

Venezuela is a country in crisis. Tens of thousands of people have taken to the streets calling for socialist leader Nicolas Maduro to go. Britain, the United States, Canada and seven south American countries agree, saying that Juan Guaidó should take his place as interim leader. But not everyone agrees that Maduro – who has brought his country to its knees – must go. Labour frontbenchers – including Diane Abbott, who said in 2012 that Venezuela ‘shows another way is possible’ – have been noticeably quiet on the subject of Venezuela today. So, too, has the party’s leader Jeremy Corbyn, who back in 2013 praised the legacy of the country’s former leader Hugo Chavez. Instead, Corbyn preferred to spend today making a visit to Milton Keynes (whose inhabitants he oncepublicly condemned). But finally in the last few hours, a Labour spokesman has broken the party’s silence on the subject of Venezuela: “We oppose outside interference in Venezuela, whether from the US or anywhere else: the future of Venezuela is a matter for Venezuelans. There needs to be a peaceful dialogue and a negotiated settlement to overcome the crisis in Venezuela.” Mr S couldn’t help but think the condemnation of ‘outside interference’ sounded familiar. So who else agrees with Labour? Step forward, Russia, whose foreign ministry issued a statement earlier today saying: “Only Venezuelans have the right to determine their future. Destructive outside interference, especially in the current extremely tense situation, is unacceptable.” Still, at least Britain won’t be alone on the world stage if Jeremy Corbyn does make it to Downing Street…

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, alexscottislegend said:

Seems strange to conflate China with Venezuela. Off topic, but the Bank of England won't release 413 million cash reserves it is holding which belongs to Venezuela.People would work when we make it worthwhile to. The genuinely disabled will be no drain on us.

Lol....the Universal Credit champion!!

 

Oh and Chavez's daughter is holding over $3billion that belongs to Venezuela but that's not a thing Socialists like to be known.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This following was published in June 2017 and has only become increasingly appropriate today. Socialists will enjoy reading this for its truth and honesty.

 

 

In a recent YouGov survey, 36% of respondents expressed a favourable, and 32% an unfavourable opinion of socialism. Capitalism, meanwhile, was viewed favourably by only 33%, and unfavourably by 39%. This means that socialism enjoys net approval in Britain, both on its own terms, and relative to capitalism. How can an economic system that has been tried so many times, and that has always ended in failure, still be so popular? Part of the reason has to be that socialists have long been very good at distancing themselves from real-world examples of socialism. Mention the failure of the Soviet Union or a similar historical example, and self-described socialist will invariably answer something like: “But that wasn’t realsocialism! That was a perverted version. Real socialism has never been tried.” This claim would have more credibility if it had been applied more consistently over time. But it hard to find any example of a socialist experiment which has not, at some point, been lavishly praised by Western intellectuals. Socialist revolutions have often been followed by a brief honeymoon period, during which they had (or seemed to have) some initial success. At that stage, almost nobody claims that they are not really socialist. It is only once the failures have become obvious and undeniable that Western intellectuals disown the experiment, and when they do, they always disown it retroactively. They then claim that the country in question has never been socialist in in the first place.

 

In the 1930s, Sidney and Beatrice Webb, co-founders of the Fabian Society and the New Statesman magazine, travelled to the Soviet Union, and subsequently wrote several books and pamphlets marvelling at it. In ‘Is Soviet communism a new civilisation?’, they described Stalin’s empire as an earthly paradise, a society characterised by perfect harmony: “[T]here is no longer any conflict of interests in production. Whether between enterprises or between grades or kinds of workers or producers, […] no person’s gain is rooted in another person’s loss. […] There is a universal and continuous incentive to every producer […] to improve his qualifications, and to render the utmost service […] Hence the eager zeal and devotion of the “shock brigades” […] to do more work than is customary […] Hence the unpaid service of the “Saturdayers” […] who give up their free time to clearing off arrears in any enterprise that lags behind its programme. […] Each [enterprise] becomes eager to help every other enterprise”.

 

Alexander Wicksteed, a British writer who spent some time in Moscow, also argued: “[F]or the first time in history the common man feels that the country belongs to him and not the privileged class that are his masters. […] [T]he Marxian ideal of a classless society […] has been realized to an extent that is wonderfully refreshing to any Englishman of democratic aspirations”. 

 

Testimonies like these abound. It was only in the 1950s that Western intellectuals fell out of love with Soviet socialism. But a new utopia soon replaced it: Mao’s China. Maria-Antonietta Macciocchi, an Italian journalist, and later an MP and an MEP, went on a pilgrimage there, and reported: “[A] people is marching with a light step and with fervour toward the future. This people may be the incarnation of the new civilization of the world. China has made an unprecedented leap into history”. 

 

Alberto Jacoviello, foreign affairs editor of the newspaper l’Unità, agreed: “[T]he most striking observation is the absolute absence of […] alienation. […] And there […] is mass political passion such as I have not found in any other part of the world”. 

 

Hewlett Johnson, an English priest of the Church of England, Dean of Manchester and later Dean of Canterbury, reported: “It was not hard […] to understand the deep affection men feel for this man […] All men – intellectuals, peasants, merchants – regard Mao as the symbol of their deliverance, the man who […] raised their burdens. The peasant looks at the land he tills: Mao’s gift. The factory worker thinks of a wage of 100 lb. rice instead of 10: Mao’s gift”. The same thing then happened all over again in Cuba, Albania, Nicaragua, Angola, Mozambique – name a socialist experiment, and I guarantee you that you can find prominent Western thinkers who have backed it enthusiastically at some point.

 

The latest example, of course, is Venezuela. Until about three years ago, when the country (which sits on the world’s largest proven oil reserves) was benefitting from an oil price boom, Chavismo – or ‘Socialism of the 21st Century’, as those ‘in the know’ would call it. In 2009, Noam Chomsky said: “[W]hat’s so exciting about at last visiting Venezuela is that I can see how a better world is being created […] The transformations that Venezuela is making toward the creation of another socio-economic model could have a global impact”. 

 

In 2012, Owen Jones went on a pilgrimage to Venezuela, and reported: “Venezuela is an inspiration to the world, it really does show that there is an alternative. I met so many people who told me how their lives had changed since the election of President Chávez.” 

 

The General Secretary of the Communication Workers Union (CWU), Bill Hayes, claimed that “Hugo Chávez helped to inspire a new socialism for the 21st century”. And the General Secretary of UNISON, Dave Prentis, believes that: “Hugo Chávez will be remembered for his continuous struggle to raise up the poor, his commitment to social justice and his dedication to fairness and equality”. 

 

After Chávez’s re-election in 2012, the General Secretary of Unite the Union, Len McCluskey, said: “We welcome this result which is a clear endorsement of Hugo Chávez’s progressive social policies. Venezuela shows that governments that put the needs of ordinary working people first can expect strong support at the ballot box. […] Europe might want to learn the obvious lessons from Venezuela”.

 

In 2015, Jeremy Corbyn wrote: “[H]istory is being played out to its fullest extent in Venezuela, where the Bolivarian revolution is in full swing and is providing inspiration across a whole continent. […] Venezuela is seriously conquering poverty by emphatically rejecting […] Neo Liberal policies […]. Success for radical policies in Venezuela is being achieved by providing for the poorest, liberating resources, but above all by popular education and involvement. As with Cuba the threat to the USA by Venezuela is not military […] It is far more insidious, a threat by example of what social justice can achieve.” 

 

The truth is that insofar as Venezuela’s initial successes were real, they were built on sand, or more precisely, on abnormally high oil prices. Since oil prices have returned to a more normal level, the Venezuelan economy has contracted by about a quarter. Shortages of basic goods, especially food and medicines, were already an issue even during the oil price peak, but they have become a lot more severe since then. Last year, three quarters of the population have lost weight due to food shortages – more than 8kg, on average. 

 

As was the case with every previous socialist experiment, Western intellectuals and commentators are now not just U-turning, but rewriting history. Noam Chomsky now claims: “I never described Chavez’s state capitalist government as ‘socialist’ […] It was quite remote from socialism. Private capitalism remained […] Capitalists were free to undermine the economy in all sorts of ways, like massive export of capital.” So, once again, Venezuela was not ‘real’ socialism, ‘real’ socialism has never been tried, and all that.  But what really happens is that whenever a experiment that self-described socialists have once endorsed as the real thing turned sour, they retroactively define it as ‘unreal’. Venezuela was only the most recent example. It will not be the last.

 

https://iea.org.uk/socialism-its-always-the-real-thing-until-its-not/

Link to post
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Bill said:

This following was published in June 2017 and has only become increasingly appropriate today. Socialists will enjoy reading this for its truth and honesty.

 

 

In a recent YouGov survey, 36% of respondents expressed a favourable, and 32% an unfavourable opinion of socialism. Capitalism, meanwhile, was viewed favourably by only 33%, and unfavourably by 39%. This means that socialism enjoys net approval in Britain, both on its own terms, and relative to capitalism. How can an economic system that has been tried so many times, and that has always ended in failure, still be so popular? Part of the reason has to be that socialists have long been very good at distancing themselves from real-world examples of socialism.  

Neoliberal Capitalism has corrupted and effectively bankrupted the whole shooting match.

 

Four decades without political counterbalance isn't enough for them.

 

They compare a political counterbalance to Russian communism. Returning some power to the labourforce and for example. re-nationalising the railways isn't Stalin, it's what happens in a balanced political society.

 

The irony is that they falsely invoke the fear of Historic Absolute Power to try and ensure they continue on their very real and current way towards it.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Venezuela would need another thread but it was always a work-in-progress, largely because Maduro is no Chavez but it is a fact that most of the major industries were left in private hands which ultimately halted the progress of the revolution. Critics on here seem to think that socialism can just be implemented quickly and easily: it cannot, it must be a struggle between the actors of a revolution and the counter-revolutionaries.

 

When a project 'fails' - or seems to be failing - the Bills of this world say, "Look, I told you so," showing no understanding of the size of task involved. Meanwhile, economists tell us that a crash worse than 2008 is in the offing while more and more of the world's wealth is swallowed up by fewer and fewer individuals.

 

A final thought:

11 hours ago, rbr said:

Socialism is a absolutely fantastic idea ,until you runout of other people's money

Teresa May said to Corbyn in parliament: "WE will not let you govern." Who did she mean?

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, rbr said:

Socialism is a absolutely fantastic idea ,until you runout of other people's money

Oh, that old Thatcher quote. It is not 'other peoples'  - it is ours. They bailed the banks out in 2008 then stole the money in the form of austerity cuts from the people to pay for it. And I mean both the EU and the UK government.

Link to post
Share on other sites

“stole the money in the form of austerity cuts”

 

Sounds good. What does it mean?

 

It wasn’t the banking system that was wrong. It was the twisting of the system by smart alec barrow boys that caused the crisis. I would have hung them from a lamppost, no trial.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.