I don't speak Spanish >.< Chavez in critical condition

[Tani Coyote]

Yeah no. If some herpderp didn't try this derpderp idea called glasnost and then further derped up the system with perestroika the USSR would still be around.

Yeah and it'd be a totalitarian hellhole.

If the USSR had been a socialist democracy from day one, it would have survived, I'd imagine, is what I'm saying. Any attempt at democracy after decades of brutal state control is bound to result in a disaster.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

But yay Iraq and Libya!

 

[civ_king]

Yeah and it'd be a totalitarian hellhole.

If the USSR had been a socialist democracy from day one, it would have survived, I'd imagine, is what I'm saying. Any attempt at democracy after decades of brutal state control is bound to result in a disaster.

indeed it would, but if it had not been tried the USSR would survive.

Are you talking about democratic socialism or a social democracy?

 

[Ajidica]

Yeah no. If some herpderp didn't try this derpderp idea called glasnost and then further derped up the system with perestroika the USSR would still be around.

The USSR would not be around today if Gorby hadn't implemented gladnost/perestroika. Their economic collapse would have continued on its merry way until we got violent revolutions. The group of people in the USSR who wouldn't have implemented limited reforms like Gorby would have been the hard-line Communists like Brezhnev who would rather die then see states break away from the USSR and Warsaw Pact.

If the USSR had been a socialist democracy from day one, it would have survived, I'd imagine, is what I'm saying. Any attempt at democracy after decades of brutal state control is bound to result in a disaster.

May I direct you to Japan, post WWII.
Anyhow, if Lenin hadn't taken a relatively authoritarian approach, the USSR would likely have gone the same way as Allende's Chile.

 

[Tani Coyote]

indeed it would, but if it had not been tried the USSR would survive.

Are you talking about democratic socialism or a social democracy?

Democratic socialism. If Trotsky's vision of bottom-up rather Stalin's top-down communism had been tried.

May I direct you to Japan, post WWII.

There are always exceptions.

That and it's more of a general rule that liberal reforms tend not to go well if you've had a highly illiberal regime for a long time. Sure there's a reason it worked in Japan but not say, Weimar Germany or the USSR.

It's always easier to take than it is to give - centralisation is easier than the alternative.

 

[Ajidica]

Democratic socialism. If Trotsky's vision of bottom-up rather Stalin's top-down communism had been tried.

Trotsky and Lenin both had similar goals. One of the major elements of early Soviet policy was to foster the creation of a proletarian culture so that the revolution could be preserved from the bottom.
Stalin, I hardly think his has to be said, was opposed by both Lenin and Trotsky but managed to come to power because his rivals were too busy fighting amongst themselves.

 

[civ_king]

The USSR would not be around today if Gorby hadn't implemented gladnost/perestroika. Their economic collapse would have continued on its merry way until we got violent revolutions. The group of people in the USSR who wouldn't have implemented limited reforms like Gorby would have been the hard-line Communists like Brezhnev who would rather die then see states break away from the USSR and Warsaw Pact.


May I direct you to Japan, post WWII.
Anyhow, if Lenin hadn't taken a relatively authoritarian approach, the USSR would likely have gone the same way as Allende's Chile.

The USSR had problems violently crushing opposition, cf Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968, Poland in 1980.

In 1985 the USSR was very secure in it's ways, how between 1985 and 1989, in the absence of sharply worsening economic, political, demographic, and other structural conditions, did the state and its economic system suddenly begin to be seen as shameful, illegitimate, and intolerable by enough men and women to become doomed?

Democratic socialism. If Trotsky's vision of bottom-up rather Stalin's top-down communism had been tried.



There are always exceptions.

That and it's more of a general rule that liberal reforms tend not to go well if you've had a highly illiberal regime for a long time. Sure there's a reason it worked in Japan but not say, Weimar Germany or the USSR.

It's always easier to take than it is to give - centralisation is easier than the alternative.

Since democratic socialism has no concrete definition you'll have to define it

 

[Monsterzuma]

before i had heard the details, i was immediately reminded of some remarks from predatory lending whistleblower John Perkins and asked "what kind of accident did they make it look like?":


Link to video.

 

[Ajidica]

In 1985 the USSR was very secure in it's ways, how between 1985 and 1989, in the absence of sharply worsening economic, political, demographic, and other structural conditions, did the state and its economic system suddenly begin to be seen as shameful, illegitimate, and intolerable by enough men and women to become doomed?

The USSR was secure in its ways, perhaps, but that didn't mean it was stable. Gorby's policies may have brought about the collapse sooner, but it made it far less violent and allowed a better transition to democracy. If the USSR had gone belly-up if they had another Brezhnev instead of Gorby, you can be pretty sure that we wouldn't have many democracies in Eastern Europe.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

The group of people in the USSR who wouldn't have implemented limited reforms like Gorby would have been the hard-line Communists like Brezhnev who would rather die then see states break away from the USSR and Warsaw Pact.

And rightfully so, disunity amongst communists is a horrible thing. Not that I particularly approve of those Brezhnevesque old-guard Marxist Leninists who were older than the state they were running, but the sentiment you have given them is appropriate.

May I direct you to Japan, post WWII.
Anyhow, if Lenin hadn't taken a relatively authoritarian approach, the USSR would likely have gone the same way as Allende's Chile.

Indeed, very much so.

Democratic socialism. If Trotsky's vision of bottom-up rather Stalin's top-down communism had been tried.

Trotsky was no democrat. He was, however, all about grass-roots organization and management.

 

[civ_king]

The USSR was secure in its ways, perhaps, but that didn't mean it was stable. Gorby's policies may have brought about the collapse sooner, but it made it far less violent and allowed a better transition to democracy. If the USSR had gone belly-up if they had another Brezhnev instead of Gorby, you can be pretty sure that we wouldn't have many democracies in Eastern Europe.

Actually stability wise it appeared the most so.

 

[Ajidica]

Actually stability wise it appeared the most so.

It may have appeared so, but that doesn't make it so.

 

[luiz]

The USSR is not really related to Chávez, who is much more of a typical latin-american caudillo than a Marxist-Leninist.

Anyway, I heard that Venezuelans are using the last verses of a famous Bob Dylan song as some sort of "get well soon song" for Chávez.


Dear Mr. Chávez:

And I hope that you die
And your death'll come soon
I will follow your casket
In the pale afternoon
And I'll watch while you're lowered
Down to your deathbed
And I'll stand over your grave
'Til I'm sure that you're dead.

 

[Tani Coyote]

I too wish him a speedy recovery even if we don't agree.

Since democratic socialism has no concrete definition you'll have to define it

Easy. Every business is run by its workers more or less, and the political power is also vested in the people. Democracy in public and private places alike. Whether the democracy is direct or not doesn't matter.

Trotsky was no democrat. He was, however, all about grass-roots organization and management.

Well, sounds like a liberal despotism then, still a ton better than an oppressive regime. And likely more sustainable; as far as I know, people generally don't care if you're King, dictator, or President so long as you take care of them.

Why care about the vote if you can have healthcare, housing, a job, food, etc.?

The USSR is not really related to Chávez, who is much more of a typical latin-american caudillo than a Marxist-Leninist.

Well, the discussion just spawned from how sustainable or lack thereof authoritarian/totalitarian states can be. That said, I don't think Venezuela's the latter, but possibly the former. I don't know enough.

 

[RedRalph]

The USSR is not really related to Chávez, who is much more of a typical latin-american caudillo than a Marxist-Leninist.

Anyway, I heard that Venezuelans are using the last verses of a famous Bob Dylan song as some sort of "get well soon song" for Chávez.


Dear Mr. Chávez:

And I hope that you die
And your death'll come soon
I will follow your casket
In the pale afternoon
And I'll watch while you're lowered
Down to your deathbed
And I'll stand over your grave
'Til I'm sure that you're dead.

I'm sure some are, yes...

 

[luiz]

I wonder why anyone would wish bad things for the caudillo. I mean, how can anyone be upset at a man that, in a region where all countries are experiecing an economic boom, managed to:

-Make GDP decrease sharply in 2009, 2010 and very likely in 2011 as well (only country in the continent in this situation).

-Make inflation exceed 30% in 2010, even as the economy went down the hole (by far the highest inflation in the continent).

-Failed so absurdly to invest in infra-structure that electricty blackouts are now part of daily life.

-Made the murder rate in the whole country, and Caracas in particular, increase by several times since he came to power. Caracas is now more deadly than Baghdad. To make his merit even bigger, he accomplished this while violence in South American countries such as Colombia and Peru continued to fall year after year. Yeah, his policy of arming militias in the shanty towns was a big success!

-Made unemployement jump top 12.1% in 2010, by far the highest rate of any South American country.

It's no wonder all countries in the world are sending observers to Venezuela to learn just how to implement glorious Bolsoc.

 

[Traitorfish]

Given the recent and increasing demands of the Bolivian working class for Chavez to stop be so damn conservative, I think it may be misguided to assume that the Bolivian left will wall fall alongside him. There's a difference between a figurehead and a strongman, after all.

Chávez, who is much more of a typical latin-american caudillo...

That's not really a very accurate description of the situation in Venezuela. Chavez, while certainly tending towards what I've heard described as a "small-a authoritarianism", bears no resemblance to the classical figure of the Latin American strongman beyond that necessary for his opponents to make this sort of hyperbolic claim. His regime has in some regards had an authoritarian, centralising tendency, of a broadly traditional "hard social democratic" sort, but it's also had a certain democratising, decentralising tendency, fostering local direct democracy, workers participation in industry, and so on. It is not quite as exceptional as some of its supporters claim, but it's by no means the cliché that you would have us believe, or perhaps would wish to believe yourself.

 

[luiz]

Given the recent and increasing demands of the Bolivian working class for Chavez to stop be so damn conservative, I think it may be misguided to assume that the Bolivian left will wall fall alongside him. There's a difference between a figurehead and a strongman, after all.

Venezuelan.

That's not really a very accurate description of the situation in Venezuela. Chavez, while certainly tending towards what I've heard described as a "small-a authoritarianism", bears no resemblance to the classical figure of the Latin American strongman beyond that necessary for his opponents to make this sort of hyperbolic claim. His regime has in some regards had an authoritarian, centralising tendency, of a broadly traditional "hard social democratic" sort, but it's also had a certain democratising, decentralising tendency, fostering local direct democracy, workers participation in industry, and so on. It is not quite as exceptional as some of its supporters claim, but it's by no means the cliché that you would have us believe, or perhaps would wish to believe yourself.

I think the opposite is taking place here: you are failing to realize that several latin-american caudillos of the past had more "revolutionary" politics for the time than Chávez.

Take the Paraguayan José Gaspar de Francia, El Supremo. In the 1820's he confiscated Church property, made education compulsory for all males, nationalized most of the land and opened the first public library of the country. I can almost picture the "progressives" praising the man. Of course, he also banned all opposition, created a secrete police force, banned higher education, stopped virtually all foreign trade, imposed heavy taxes on marriages and insisted on celebrating all such ceremonies personally, and even banned white people from marrying each other, as he dreamed of a homogenous mixed-race population (even though he was a white man himself).

Chávez looks like just another latin-american caudillo to me. The nationalism, the taste for military coups (remember he attempted to overthrow a democratic government back in the 90's in such manner), the silly and theatrical rhetorics against the USA: latin americans have all heard that story before.

It's absolutely unoriginal that his support base is among the poorest and that he is hated by the middle class. That has been a pattern among regional strongmen, though not all of them, for about 200 years.

 

[Ajidica]

It's absolutely unoriginal that his support base is among the poorest and that he is hated by the middle class. That has been a pattern among regional strongmen, though not all of them, for about 200 years.

Really? Most South American strongman leaders I know of came to power with the support of the middle class and wealthy. Pinochet and the Argentinian Junta come to mind.

 

[ParkCungHee]

May I direct you to Japan, post WWII.

Claiming even a decade of brutal state control in Japan is questionable. Claiming two is nonsense.