Re: [OPE] Venezuela again

From: <cmgermer@ufpr.br>
Date: Fri Jan 30 2009 - 08:57:24 EST

Hi Alejandro,
thank you for your answer. You raise a very important topic, which I will
comment knowing that our theoretical references are different. Thus, I
don't expect to convince you, but just to argue with you.

Social institutions are for Marxism not a-historical. Even if they survive
formally, from one mode of production to the other, their essence must
change. The same for *values and institutions in liberal democracies*. As
I argued in my previous post, liberal democracy is for Marxism a class
dictatorship, which imo cannot be denied. The repression of Marxist
thought in the universities and everywhere in capitalist countries is an
ideological aspect of this dictatorship. It is justified by the fact that
it is impossible to sustain an exploitative social system without
systematic repression of action as well as of thought and word against it,
except if the latter are kept small and under control.

Thus, if liberalism expresses the ideal of liberty and equality for all,
its essence in capitalism does not represent it, although it might be
taken as a stage in the historical development. Hence the capitalist
liberal institutions cannot survive in socialism in its capitalist form.
This is, I think, why Lenin argued, in "State and Revolution", that with
communism democracy comes to an end, meaning that democracy is the
political expression of the capitalist class dictatorship. It's not simply
democracy, it is bourgeois democracy.

A decisive point in Marxism, in theory and even more in practice, is the
political nature of socialism, in the period immediately after the
political revolution that removes the bourgeoisie from the State power.
The revolution does not destroy the bourgeoisie physically as a class, and
does not destroy the bourgeois ideology, and doesn't even destroy its
capability to return to power. This is a period of actual war of classes,
where the political expression of socialism cannot be other than a class
dictatorship, this time against the capitalist class. Imo this has been
demonstrated by the historical experience of socialist revolutions since
the end of the 19th century. Being a class dictatorship, it will of
necessity show, in an inverted way, aspects of the *liberal institutions*
of capitalism.

I don't think there is a contradiction between this and the fact that
Marxists *fiercely denounce the repressive nature* of being banned from
liberal universities (btw, it must be clear that *liberal* universities
are nothing more than the expression of the capitalist class dictatorship
in the sphere of research and higher education. If not, why are both the
Marxist theory and the Marxists systematically banned from them?). They
denounce it not in order not to be banned, but to shed light on the
falsity of bourgeois liberalism and of bourgeois liberal institutions.

As I said, I don't expect to convince you, but in discussing with you I
expect to better clarify my own ideas, based on the understanding that it
is more clarifying to discuss with persons of different thinking than of
our own.

Comradely,
Claus.

> Claus, I‚€™m not referring neither to you nor to anyone in particular. I
> don‚€™t know who you are at all indeed. I‚€™m just highlighting the fact
> that there are values and institutions in liberal democracies of which
> some Stalinists take advantage, and that these institutions must survive
> in Socialism.
>  
> If these scholars were banned from liberal universities, I‚€™m sure they
> are going to fiercely denounce the repressive nature of this practice, but
> they are not willing to recognize the repressive nature of this and other
> discriminatory practices in Cuba and increasingly in Venezuela.
>  
> I‚€™m going to answer you with another question. Having in mind the long
> list of items required to judge the ‚€œpoliarchical‚€ nature of a regime,
> which I shred with the list on the occasion of another discussion about
> Venezuela, can you really say that current socialist regimes are less
> repressive than liberal regimes in developed countries?
>  
> Regards,
> A. Agafonow
>  
> P.S. I‚€™m not loosing my temper. I‚€™m discussing. That‚€™s what we do in
> a discussion list.
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> De: "cmgermer@ufpr.br" <cmgermer@ufpr.br>
> Para: Outline on Political Economy mailing list <ope@lists.csuchico.edu>
> Enviado: jueves, 29 de enero, 2009 13:25:18
> Asunto: Re: [OPE] Venezuela again
>
> Hi Alejandro,
> you should not lose your temper so easily, only because I think
> differently from you.
> In the first place, my personal source of earning is not of your concern,
> this is not what is being discussed. And second, you are wrong if you
> think we live in a liberal paradise where Marxists can express their ideas
> "without fearing retaliation", especially in Latin America. You should
> read the history of the class struggles in Latin America (and of all over
> the world as well) at least since World War II.
> Now about what matters: isn't the liberal democracy what is called
> bourgeois democracy in Marxist terms, which is conceived of as being a
> class dictatorship based on the exploitation of labour power by the
> capitalist class? Can you go beyond liberal democracy without
> extinguishing its material basis? Do you think it is possible to maintain
> a system based on the exploitation of one by the other without maintaining
> a system of repression?
> comradely,
> Claus.
>
>
>
>> There are Marxists and non-Marxists socialists in this list that are not
>> Stalinists. Besides, I am open to revise liberal institutions. I myself
>> think that we can go beyond liberal democracy and the welfare state.
>> √‚¬†
>> But not at the expense of liquidating the values an institutions that
>> let
>> anti-system scholars like you express your ideas without fearing
>> retaliations, and even having very wealthy positions in liberal
>> universities of capitalist countries.
>> √‚¬†A. Agafonow
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> De: "cmgermer@ufpr.br" <cmgermer@ufpr.br>
>> Para: Outline on Political Economy mailing list <ope@lists.csuchico.edu>
>> Enviado: mi√ƒ¬©rcoles, 28 de enero, 2009 19:45:56
>> Asunto: Re: [OPE] Venezuela again
>>
>> Hi Alejandro,
>>
>> you take a curious position in this debate, not accepting the validity
>> of
>> the opinions of people that do not agree with your own ideas. It is
>> clear
>> that the debate here is not only about different opinions, but about
>> opinions based on different theoretical concepts about society. In this
>> case it's difficult to come to relevant agreements, you should know
>> that,
>> counting as you do on the impressing "theoretical resources that during
>> centuries liberal theorists have built". The problem is that those
>> resources do not have to impress people whose ideas are based on
>> different
>> theoretical resources.
>>
>> You do not accept Marx's theory, that's ok, but you will not be able to
>> discredit it simply by calling every Marxist that disagrees with you a
>> Stalinist or referring to their theories as "shapeless ideas". This
>> seems
>> to me to be a are very poor way of debating.
>> comradely,
>> Claus.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Dear Jerry:
>>> √ƒ‚€š√‚¬†
>>> This is the dichotomic logic that leads you to support the dictatorship
>>> in
>>> Cuba, and that will lead you to support any other Stalinist regime that
>>> comes in the future.
>>> √ƒ‚€š√‚¬†
>>> You, some Marxists, have not even properly developed the normative
>>> foundations of this institutional order. I suspect that the reason is
>>> that
>>> you suspect that essentially these dictatorships are deeply
>>> anti-socialists.
>>> √ƒ‚€š√‚¬†
>>> Here I am, ready to willingly display the theoretical resources that
>>> during centuries liberal theorists have built, debating with someone
>>> who
>>> doesn√ƒ¬Ę√Ę‚€š¬¨√Ę‚€ž¬Ęt want to even try to deepen into the normative
>>> contradictions of
>>> the shapeless ideas of the founder fathers of Marxism.
>>> √ƒ‚€š√‚¬†
>>> I hope you understand why I can not continue with this partisan
>>> discussion. If I want to involve in this kind of discussions
>>> I√ƒ¬Ę√Ę‚€š¬¨√Ę‚€ž¬Ęll
>>> go to
>>> the Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela, not to OPE.
>>> √ƒ‚€š√‚¬†
>>> Sincerely yours,A. Agafonow
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> De: GERALD LEVY <gerald_a_levy@msn.com>
>>> Para: Outline on Political Economy mailing list
>>> <ope@lists.csuchico.edu>
>>> Enviado: mi√ƒ∆’√‚¬©rcoles, 28 de enero, 2009 16:11:29
>>> Asunto: RE: [OPE] Venezuela again
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> A serious analysis has to start explaining the socioeconomic
>>>> foundations
>>>> of the evolution of the two-party
>>>> system in a regime that doesn√ƒ¬Ę√Ę‚€š¬¨√Ę‚€ž¬Ęt have formal entry
>>>> barriers in
>>>> the
>>>> electoral competition.
>>> √ƒ‚€š√‚¬†
>>>
>>> Alejandro A:
>>> √ƒ‚€š√‚¬†
>>> No, a serious analysis has to begin with a historical analysis,
>>> including
>>> class analysis.√ƒ‚€š√‚¬†
>>> One has to scituate the current struggle in Venezuela, not in abstract
>>> statements about
>>> democracy and whether term limits are desirable, but in the actual
>>> struggles
>>> and material conditions of workers and the poor. One, additionally, has
>>> to
>>> grasp
>>> the nature of the opposition and whether they are as pro-democratic as
>>> they claim,
>>> not by their propaganda but by their actions.√ƒ‚€š√‚¬† Frankly, the
>>> whole
>>> discussion by Chavez's
>>> opponents - nationally and internationally - about whether there should
>>> be
>>> term limits
>>> is a ruse: they couldn't care less about an abstract principle, they
>>> just
>>> want to see Chavez
>>> gone by any means. What is 'hilarious'√ƒ‚€š√‚¬† sometimes are the
>>> inconsistencies
>>> and hypocrisy of
>>> these opponents:√ƒ‚€š√‚¬† e.g. an editorial of _The New York
>>> Times_√ƒ‚€š√‚¬†
>>> supported
>>> term limits in
>>> Venezuela and said that Chavez was an undemocratic tyrant for opposing
>>> them. One
>>> would think then√ƒ‚€š√‚¬†from that editorial that _The New York Times_
>>> was
>>> committed to the
>>> principle of term limits, but that is not all the case. In New York,
>>> the
>>> people of the
>>> City voted twice for term limits. Yet, when Mayor Michael Bloomberg
>>> asked
>>> that
>>> term limits be done away with (not through popular vote, but through a
>>> vote of the
>>> City Council), the _NYT_ supported Bloomberg's demand√ƒ‚€š√‚¬†to get
>>> rid of
>>> term
>>> limits
>>> on the Mayor even though polls showed that the overwhelming majority of
>>> New
>>> Yorkers were opposed to this.√ƒ‚€š√‚¬† Of course there are many other
>>> examples as
>>> well,
>>> most notably the fact that many of the same forces which conspired
>>> against
>>> democracy by supporting the 2002 coup d'etat talk about how
>>> "undemocratic"
>>> Chavez allegedly is.√ƒ‚€š√‚¬†
>>> √ƒ‚€š√‚¬†
>>> In solidarity, Jerry
>>>
>>>
>>>√‚¬† √‚¬† √‚¬† _______________________________________________
>>> ope mailing list
>>> ope@lists.csuchico.edu
>>> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ope mailing list
>> ope@lists.csuchico.edu
>> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
>>
>>
>>
>>      _______________________________________________
>> ope mailing list
>> ope@lists.csuchico.edu
>> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ope mailing list
> ope@lists.csuchico.edu
> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ope mailing list
> ope@lists.csuchico.edu
> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
>

_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Fri Jan 30 09:04:58 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Jan 31 2009 - 00:00:04 EST