In which we discuss Madurismo

This 'sabotage hotline' appears to have been launched because of the imperialist enemies and internal traitors staging an energy coup (i.e. there was a massive blackout recently).

There was also a plan to attack Venezuela (or Maduro, which is the same) at the same time that the US would attack Syria, and there's been another four assasination attempt against him -he claims- so far this year, one of those by the minions of former Colombian President Álvaro Uribe. And it goes on, and on, and on…
 
This is a silly question, but is the Monroe Doctrine, ( America being the protector and benefactor of Latin America), still in effect?
 
The Monroe doctrine was never an official binding policy. Rio Pact defense treaty is still around but it is not honored.
 
This is a silly question, but is the Monroe Doctrine, ( America being the protector and benefactor of Latin America), still in effect?

it's been modified. The original Monroe Doctrine was that the US would oppose European intervention in this hemisphere, not necessarily in a military way. TR then changed it to include American right to specifically intervene militarily. But seeing as European imperialism in the region has given way to American imperialism (largely because of the Monroe Doctrine, mind you!) I would say that it's obsolete. The US still regards Latin America as its backyard, but its attitude is not one of welcoming the replacement of imperial rule with domestic rule/independence, as it is now the imperial power.
 
This is a silly question, but is the Monroe Doctrine, ( America being the protector and benefactor of Latin America), still in effect?
Yes and no. 'Murica tries to exercise their power and blackball anyone within range. However, they've overextended themselves with all these wars in the Middle East. Now Brazil is rising (to a degree), and Chávez was giving free handouts of oil to bankroll his buddies… if the US hadn't been so busy waging their war for of on terror they might've realised they were losing their hold on this corner of the world, also, they wouldn't if they hadn't overplayed their hand with their IMF causing meltdowns everywhere..
 
Also worth noting, the Munroe Doctrine never precluded all European intervention in the Western hemisphere, because several European countries possessed territories in the region and were consequentially admitted certain rights vis a vis these territories, the most notable recent example being American tolerance of the British bombing of Argentina during the Falklands conflict. Even the most expansive interpretations only insist that Europeans powers should seek American approval before intervening.
 
According to the British view on this particular topic, they didn't bomb Argentina. ;)
 
Nah, wait, I'm getting myself mixed up: the RAF drew up plans to bomb mainland Argentina, but in the end restricted themselves to the Falklands. Although, I don't gather that they expected serious American opposition to mainland bombing, so the point stands.
 
Well we're veering a bit off-topic aren't we. :)
 
Well, for me, Maduro has lost it. And he should step down from his post before his country suffers more than it is already suffering. Or maybe he shouldn't. After all, I want to make some easy bucks by selling toilet paper on the black market....
 
Nah, wait, I'm getting myself mixed up: the RAF drew up plans to bomb mainland Argentina, but in the end restricted themselves to the Falklands.
I thought Britain did bomb some mainland Argentinian targets with bombers (Valiants, I think. Whatever the main bomber of the V-Force was at the time) based out of Ascension Island to try and demonstrate long range bombers were still effective for deterrent. (Hadn't by the Falklands War the responsibility for nuclear deterrent been shifted to the Royal Navy, away from the RAF?)
Although if memory serves, the number of refueling trips to get from their base to Argentina made the whole thing a bit worthless.
 
Maybe? Clearly I've not got all my wits about me one way or the other.
 
I thought Britain did bomb some mainland Argentinian targets with bombers (Valiants, I think. Whatever the main bomber of the V-Force was at the time) based out of Ascension Island to try and demonstrate long range bombers were still effective for deterrent. (Hadn't by the Falklands War the responsibility for nuclear deterrent been shifted to the Royal Navy, away from the RAF?)
Although if memory serves, the number of refueling trips to get from their base to Argentina made the whole thing a bit worthless.

The Black Buck raids (involving Vulcans and Victors - the Valiant was the one V-bomber not used :p) only hit Argentine positions in the Falklands, not the mainland.
 
It is worth noting that Chávez was elected last year, not for another constitutionally limited period, but also as the Eternal President of the Republic. Maduro is trying to keep up with Chávez's flamboyant, high-sounding style and manages to sound like an idiot every single time.
 
That's the problem with a movement which is both highly charismatic and highly institutionalised. It's not going to just dissolve when the charismatic leader dies, but it's not obvious how it's supposed to keep going, so you either need to pull a dramatic about face á la Kruschev, or keep spinning out the mythology until you can think of something better.
 
That's the problem with a movement which is both highly charismatic and highly institutionalised. It's not going to just dissolve when the charismatic leader dies, but it's not obvious how it's supposed to keep going, so you either need to pull a dramatic about face á la Kruschev, or keep spinning out the mythology until you can think of something better.
North Korea's ow nineteen years and counting while working on that something better. Let's hope, for Venezuela's sake, that it doesn't take that long.
 
North Korea's ow nineteen years and counting while working on that something better. Let's hope, for Venezuela's sake, that it doesn't take that long.


Venezuela is more competitive. It wasn't that long ago that the right wing was in power. Chavez was trying to consolidate enough to prevent their return. I don't believe NK had that problem.
 
In Albania when Enver Hoxha died in 1985 his successor, Ramiz Alia, actually boosted the personality cult that did exist around Hoxha. A museum was created, as was a golden statue, various other monuments, the renaming of various entities after him, etc. As late as April 11, 1991 the Party of Labour (aka PPSh)'s news organ Zëri i Popullit had the following rhetoric:
Spoiler :
We are today commemorating Enver Hoxha. This is the sixth April since he departed from his people and from the party that he founded and led. This is the sixth April that we bow with profound respect in memory of this popular leader for everything that he did for his country and people, for our beloved Albania.

The current April is very special. Time has brought new political forces onto the scene, forces opposing the Party of Labour of Albania, its line, and the road traversed by Enver Hoxha. This is a historic moment that we have jointly brought about and that we must follow up jointly with a lofty sense of responsibility for the consolidation of the all-powerful democracy. In this great pluralist victory, at this political turning point, we again feel the presence of Enver Hoxha and his deeds, his valuable teachings, his analyses of the situation, and his dialectical thinking about the future. Thus, although the times have changed, Enver Hoxha’s personality lives on fully and inviolate in the national consciousness. Any historical personality who does not become an obstacle to successive generations on the paths that they may choose in life and their aspirations must be a fortunate one. Enver Hoxha, thus, was such a personality.

What has remained of Enver Hoxha at this moment of considerable and profound changes? The dimensions of a historic personality are determined by his achievements, by the relationship that he has established with the period in which he lived, as well as with the future. History is partial to nobody. Sooner or later it determines everybody’s place. Enver Hoxha. too, has his deserved place in the pantheon of Albanian history. It is precisely history that serves its own people best. The past 50 years of the PPSh, and Enver Hoxha’s leadership for nearly half a century, are a component part of this history. This is his first and most important service to history, and we will never forget him for that.

Is it possible to forget that grave period of the country's occupation, when the very fate of this people was being questioned, when our partitioned Albania was once again at the crossroads? During all those heroic years it was Enver Hoxha who not only felt the pain of the occupation and the danger that threatened the very existence of the Albanian nation, but who also understood better and more clearly than anyone else the road to the future. That is why he became the founder and organizer of the only political force that placed itself at the head of the people and became their inspirer and organizer in the struggle for freedom and the establishment of the people’s power. This was the party that reflected the vital interests of the masses, of the all-national interests. That is why it won their support. In its leader the masses saw the brave commander of the National Liberation Army, the courageous and cool leader, as well as the ardent patriot. Patriotism, this great and sacred sentiment of all Albanians, runs like a red thread through every day of Enver’s life and every line of his works. That is why he will be honored forever. Comrade Ramiz Alia has written: “Enver Hoxha was an ardent patriot. He was permeated throughout with the distinguished patriotic traditions of our small nation that has suffered much. He fought with unprecedented heroism, with weapons, with the pen, with his knowledge, and with his entire being to defend our socialist homeland, its independence and sovereignty, its national rights, and the dignity of the people and our socialist state.”

The memory of our people cannot forget how the country had to be rebuilt from nothing and how the newly won power had to be defended at a time when it was the target of the most regressive forces from within and from outside. The new democratic order, the new democracy, the first democracy for the broad masses, for the workers and the peasants, the only correct and salvational alternative at the time, could not have been defended other than through the strictest dictatorship against those who plotted to stifle this new democracy. Otherwise we would not have had the people’s power, we would not have all the achievements, and perhaps we would not have the borders of present-day Albania. Finally, we would not have had the opportunity of reaching, at this new and present stage, the victory of pluralist democracy. Enver Hoxha, too. has the place of honor in all this. Let us therefore call him the predecessor and, simultaneously, a coparticipant in these great events that are currently taking place in our midst.

The first concern of every leader is the progress of his own country. We are now in a position to judge what has been done and what could still be done. However, no clear mind can fail to admit that it was no easy matter at all to leave behind a medieval darkness and to progress rapidly toward the creation of an entire army of educated and cultured people, to train an army of knowledgeable people, from the ordinary engineer to the fully trained intellectuals, who are so numerous in production and in science, all of them trained in our own university as well as abroad. It is precisely this that became the determining factor in the rapid growth of a multibranched industry and advanced agriculture. The correct policy pursued by the PPSh and Enver Hoxha’s particular solicitude in this question were of decisive importance. Can anyone fail to appreciate this contribution?

The world has produced many distinguished statesmen and able diplomats. Not a few of them have had the historical chance to determine not only the fate of nations and countries, but also to influence historical trends. Without making any comparisons, Enver Hoxha will remain in the history of the Albanian nation for his own role at decisive moments in this country’s life. Enver Hoxha was one of the very few, if not the only one, to give the example of a true pluralist, when he dared proclaim to the world his own ideas, and that of his own party, on fundamental questions of its ideological line. He exposed the covert betrayals of false friends and allowed Albania neither to be made part of the maps of others nor to be turned into a prosperous garden with fortified shores that would have been a threat to its neighbors and Europe. It is not only Albania that appreciates this, but also Europe, regardless of how much it may raise its voice when it admits this undeniable truth. Our people supported these resolute and correct stands, despite the fact that by so doing it burdened itself with economic consequences. It was not that our intelligent people did not know how to calculate. However, in the final analysis, every people, at all times, knows how to set its essential priorities clearly at particular moments in history. The Albanian people made a priority of what was most dear to them: the country’s freedom and independence. Enver Hoxha’s powerful links with the people, his knowledge of their psychology, as well as of their history and traditions, gave strength and dignity to his stand. This consistency was of decisive importance in the country’s destiny. Is it possible not to be grateful to Enver Hoxha for this?

In what other ways do Enver’s life and deeds serve us? We have truly entered a new stage, a pluralist society, with considerable changes from the past. In Enver’s theoretical thinking, one finds no ready made formulas and recipes. Such things have served no purpose in the past and even less at present, when it is not possible to lead through slogans and quotes. However, there is one valuable essential element that serves its purpose from any viewpoint. This is the dialectical view of society, phenomena, and the world. This dialectical way of viewing things, which is the major lesson that we must draw from Comrade Enver's deeds, served the PPSh and Comrade Ramiz Alia in judging events in the East and other developments, particularly in Europe. This dialectical view served them also to rely directly on a historic speech, as was the speech delivered in Mat almost 20 years ago, which was placed at the epicenter of the democratizing reforms within the party, beginning with its eighth plenum.

Nevertheless, not a few attacks have been directed recently against Enver Hoxha’s name and deeds from the opposition or anticommunist theoreticians. These also prepared the ground for severe vandalistic actions against his monuments in various cities. These count among the most bitter moments of our pluralist democracy and will be remembered with a guilt complex for such attacks against a historic personality, but also against the sentiments of the people, their democratic culture, and civilization. These unprecedented and revolting attacks and acts were certainly intended to strike against the PPSh, to separate it from the people, to divide its ranks, to separate the leadership from the ranks. However, our wise, cultured, and restrained people did not fall into these traps. They rose like one in demonstrations of affection and respect for Enver Hoxha, for the party that he founded and led, and for Ramiz Alia as the leader and contemporary reformer, the genuine architect and builder of democratization. It is with the same clarity that the people went to the first pluralist elections and voted overwhelmingly for the PPSh candidates, for the most authoritative contemporary political force, for the party that initiated the democratizing reforms and is capable of leading them to conclusion in a calm and wise manner, without sickly excesses and passions, the party that is prepared to serve the interests of the people and only theirs.

We are progressing on a new path and will come across the unknown, the unexpected. Enver’s life will help us along this path with the example of his profound devotion and dedication in giving his all and everything to the party, the people, and the country. He will help us with his example as an irreconcilable opponent of procrastination, sluggishness, routine thinking, bureaucracy, and degradation. He will help us through his unique experience in establishing contact with the people, in listening to their voice, and in the self-critical sense that characterized him whenever he found himself among the mass of the working people. This example is needed by all of us, now more than ever. However, this example assumes new values and we consider ourselves fortunate that Enver Hoxha did not leave behind closed paths on our way toward Europe. We do not need to apologize to anyone, we are not indebted to anyone, neither materially nor morally. It is with this dignity that Enver left us before the gates of Europe. For this, we are and will always be grateful to him.
It's worth noting that market reforms had already begun, multi-party politics had been endorsed in December (and multi-party elections held on March 31), the end of April would see the adoption of a post-socialist constitution, and in June the 10th Party Congress changed the Party of Labour into the Socialist Party with a social-democratic ideology.

So it's interesting how as late as April, then, there was still the need to use vaguely communist rhetoric and not only leech off the legacy of Hoxha, but try to tie him in with opening up to the West and whatnot as well (which was the direct opposite of his actual positions, for in the 70's he claimed it was Europe that should follow the Albanian road of upholding Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin.)

It's an example of how a charismatic personality can be used to justify a whole bunch of policies, and since Hoxha was pretty much the founder of the Party of Labour there was an absolute need to uphold him no matter what (which obviously didn't work so he, and Marxism, were thrown aside in June.) It is somewhat similar to Argentina where seemingly everyone is a Peronist whether left-wing or right-wing, and I think a similar thing is occurring in Venezuela where you have three factions claiming legitimacy from Chávez (the government, those to the left of it, and those to the right of it.)
 
I've purposefully been not paying attention to Venezuelan news but according to my mom, people are dieing on the street protesting on a regular basis now, and the government is trying to put all opposition leaders in jail for treason against the state. :(

Apparently they are trying to re-establish capital punishment too, ironically since Venezuela was the first state in the Americas to outlaw it.

Also there is no right in Venezuela anymore. Only the left, and the Chavistas.
 
Back
Top Bottom