Lenin’s Tomb
How do you manage to post 35 minute YouTube videos?
Apparently, they have to accept you as a 'director', then there are no limits.
Excellent stuff; thanks for posting it!
One problem, however: Mike kept using a rather odd word to describe events: "contradiction", when none of the things he mentioned were actual contradictions.
On the problems this sloppy use of language creates, see here:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/ros...-Explain-
Change
gonzalez is a great great speaker. last time i saw him, i promised to learn spanish - that's his impact. also, that watch between his fingers looks really cool.
it's amazing the level of uncritical/unthinking support for Chavez. I've skim read, but see Zizek's article in the latest LRB. Dear me.
by the way, i know that Zizek's argument is a lot more complex that 'Chavez is great' but still, how bizarre!
He reminds me of something I read in my student paper about myself - "Who is he, the King of Countries?". I ask, "Who is Zizek, the King of the Left?"
thanks for this..
steff - I have no problem with Zizek defending Chavez. The basis of his defense is actually rather weird and problematic - he defends Chavez in this macho way that accepts much of the stereotype of Chavez as a strongman grabbing power ruthlessly, extirpating the opposition etc - rousing stuff, but not really true. As I insisted before, Chavez should be defended first and foremost as someone who has defended and extended Venezuelan democracy in the direction of mass socialism-from-below (and then critiqued because of the limitations of this process).
I mean, the other thing is, Zizek probably isn't the ideal person to mount a critique of Chavez. Know why? Because he'd probably use the same basic features he now praises to attack Chavez!
What is Zizek's record of activism? He's in Prague at the moment and is to address our demo, it's the 18th anniversary of the "Velvet Rev." and we are demanding "democracy", i.e. a referendum on the US's NMD radar base. Gave a good talk yesterday night and even appeared on Czech TV (http://www.ceskatelevize.cz/vysilani/16.11.2007/
207411000371116-21:00-2-udalosti-komentare.html?
index%5B%5D=120927) where he managed to promote today's demo.
Mike Gonzalez is always a great speaker and never fails to cut right through to the central point, emphasising what a union organiser, or a PSUV activist - the left - should be doing in Venezuela right now.
Despite the apparent constraints on debate within the PSUV, Mike is absolutely clear that it is sectarian to stand apart from a party that calls itself 'revolutionary' and 'socialist', and has 6 MILLION members !
He is also spot on when he says the proposed Constitutional changes contain provisions that could perpetuate a reliance on Chávez, but that in the big picture context of the attacks by the right and the US, Chávez must be supported and the vote on 2 December must be won.
I was pleased that Mike made these arguments laced with such a positive and supportive account of Venezuela's revolution, because I often get the impression that some on the left in North America and Europe look at Chávez's apparent dominance and dismiss or stand back from what is happening in Venezuela, dismissing the revolution as bureaucratic or populist.
In Latin America, the effect of Venezuela's challenge to the elite, the US, and even kings, infuses struggle and opposition (and support in the nations that have leaders worth supporting - Ecuador's Correa and Bolivia's Morales) with incredible energy and passion.
Colombia's opposition has been given the space to organise and start winning victories, partly because Latin America's left turn and has closed down opportunities for rightwing death squads to operate as obviously and viciously as they did a few years back.
To us, it is vital that Chávez continues as Venezuela's leader and the revolution is strengthened, for the influence the revolution has, and the indirect protection it gives to the Colombian opposition.
Mike Gonzalez is spot on about what is happening in Venezuela. He is also right in his repeated use of the word 'contradiction'. I say this as someone who is a witness of what Mike is talking about. Steffaction, lets make a pact to learn Spanish even it kills us. I saw with my own two eyes what Chavez is doing for the working class and the poor, the down trodden of Venezuela. The ones Mike talks about at this meeting, who live on houses hanging on cliff tops, who pick their food from rubbish dumps competing with dogs. Chavez is bringing dignity to these people, not only through building houses etc, but in education.
I had a burning question since going to the WSF in Caracus, and i was ecstatic when Mike answered it the way i wanted to hear it. I spent 4 days of my 8 days in Caracus last year on my own walking up and down the barrios. Unfourtunately language was a barrier. However i walked into buildings, some looked like clinics, but turned out to be schools with old and young sat together in class. When i asked Mike about the carriculum at these schools, he confirmed to me that it includes the teachings of how the poor can emancipate themselves from their yolk of poverty. Something the poor of England are not taught any where. Instead they are taught to honour the rich and be grateful for the crumbs given to them.
The contradictions Mike is talking about become obvious where there is dual power. The state apparatus owned by the oppressors, who will at a drop of a hat turn against Chavez and his dynamic followers. Hence we see Chavez turning to Latin American countries who are pro-capitalists for support against American imperialism.
I could write a book on this, so with due respect to my beloved lenin who owns this blog, i will ask those who understand what Mike is talking about to elaborate. It is a carry on of what the 'Fourth International' is all about. It is also for this reason that my support for Chavez is unconditional, because i know how it feels like to be poor and unloved. There goes the first contradiction. Thats dialects for you
Thanks len!
Some very useful info & analysis from Mike Gonzales.
However. On two points his speech was naive, and appeared to be based on fantasy rather than reality.
1) Gonzales disagreed with the proposed change in the constitution which gives Venezuelans the right to re-elect Chavez again and again (if they wish to do so), even describing this change as "dangerous".
No matter how often you repeat that 'revolutions should come from below', the fact remains that the character & ability of leaders does make a big difference to any political process.
To insist that Hugo Chavez should be barred from being elected again is to demand that the Venezuelan revolution should de-commission one of its greatest assets. Unless Mike Gonzales has reliable crystal balls which perdict that a better leader than Chavez is going to emerge in Venezuela the near future!
2) Gonzales expressed impatience with the pace of nationalisation. It is true, as he pointed out, that the Venezuelan economy is still fundamentally capitalist. But the Venezuelan revolution has to reckon with current realities, which include the level of understanding inside the country, political and economic relationships with other Latin American countries, and the capitalist and US-dominated nature of our present world.
Cuba nationalised most of its economy in a very short period in the early 1960s, and survived the US blockade and mass emigration of people with important skills. This was only possible because of the existence of the USSR, which provided an alternative source of technology & trade opportunities.
Florence:
"The contradictions Mike is talking about become obvious where there is dual power. The state apparatus owned by the oppressors, who will at a drop of a hat turn against Chavez and his dynamic followers. Hence we see Chavez turning to Latin American countries who are pro-capitalists for support against American imperialism.
I could write a book on this, so with due respect to my beloved lenin who owns this blog, i will ask those who understand what Mike is talking about to elaborate. It is a carry on of what the 'Fourth International' is all about. It is also for this reason that my support for Chavez is unconditional, because i know how it feels like to be poor and unloved. There goes the first contradiction. Thats dialects for you."
Or, rather: that's confusion for you.
You might as well use the word 'tautology', or 'conjunction' (or any other word you care to choose) to describe these events, if you are going to use this word with no good reason.
I take it you did not read the serious confusion this sort of talk creates (detailed at the link I provided), otherwise you would, like me, have rejected it.
This is not to deny the conflicts that exist in Venezuela, but conflicts are not contadictions.
Contadictions as you put it Rosa is something i do not understand. Contradictions however mean the opposite of a statement to be true, or be at variance with. Rosa, i happen to be one of those people who prescribe a word to mean what i understand it to mean. If someone else uses it to mean the opposite of what i understand, i do not persue that. Because in so doing, i realised i wasted a lot of my energies given my limited scope of thinking. So my apologies that i do not confuse myself by trying to understand the meaning of this word by reading your detailed meaning of contadiction in your link. Take it as my right to refuse to do so, and i will take it as your right to contadict me on my understanding of Mike's use of the word contradiction.
What is of importance to me in Mike's detailed analysis of Chavez and Venezuela is that, Mike understands why these contradictions have arisen and how, we as Socialists should support Chavez and the Bolivarian revolution. The rest, I'll leave to intellectuals like you Rosa.
I have just re-read the passage I linked to above, and to my mind it is not at all clear what I am saying, so I have completely re-written it to make it crystal clear -- I hope!
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/ros...-Explain-
Change
Okay Rosa... I've read your article. A question: are you saying that "contradiction" should never be used as a term while discussing political trends or ideological realities?
Ok, I take it then that it wouldn't be unusual for Zizek to address a demo? Anybody? Had a good 2 minute speech too, perhaps pandering a tiny bit too much to nationalism, but good nonetheless.
Why do the mass of people of Venezuela support Chavez? because he is see as one of them, as honest and upright. Such people dont trust organisations ,only individuals.You only need to look at the venezuelan trade unions!
People who say the Revolution is too dependent on Chavez over look this due to their way of thinking, and perhaps they think: 'i can never be as honest as Chavez, because i really seek power, disguised as a wish to aid the people'.
The people know full well, Chavez is surrounded by persons of dubious morality. But they trust him. So i cant agree with Gonzalez, who seems very naieve on just this point. Without people like Chavez, all you get are groups like the British labor party...or the venezualan trade unions.
Castellio, no I am not saying that.
A clear use of that word in politcs would be something like:
"Tony Blair is a socialist"
"No, I am afraid, I am going to have to contradict you there..."
There are countess words in ordinary language that allow us to talk of change; here are a few:
"Vary, alter, adjust, amend, revise, edit, bend, straighten, twist, turn, wrap, pluck, tear, mend, mutate, transmute, sharpen, modify, develop, expand, contract, constrict, swell, flow, differentiate, divide, unite, fast, slow, rapid, hasty, melt, harden, drip, cascade, drop, pick up, fade, wind, unwind, meander, peel, scrape, file, scour, dislodge, is, was, will be, will have been, had, will have had, went, go, going, gone, lost, age, flood, crumble, disintegrate, erode, corrode, rust, flake, percolate, tumble, mix, separate, cut, chop, crush, grind, shred, slice, dice, saw, spread, fall, climb, rise, ascend, descend, slide, slip, roll, spin, oscillate, undulate, rotate, wave, quickly, slowly, instantaneously, suddenly, gradually, snap, join, resign, part, rapidly, sell, buy, lose, find, search, cover, uncover, stretch, compress, lift, put down, win, ripen, germinate, conceive, gestate, die, rot, perish, grow, decay, fold, many, more, less, fewer, steady, steadily, jerkily, smoothly, quickly, very, extremely, exceedingly, intermittent, continuous, continual, push, pull, slide, jump, run, walk, swim, drown, immerse, break, charge, retreat, assault, dismantle, pulverise, disintegrate, dismember, replace, undo, reverse, repeal, enact, quash, hour, minute, second, instant, destroy, annihilate, boil, freeze, thaw, cook, liquefy, solidify, congeal, neutralise, flatten, crimple, evaporate, condense, dissolve, mollify, pacify, calm down, terminate, initiate, instigate, enrage, inflame, protest, challenge, expel, eject, remove, overthrow, expropriate, scatter, gather, assemble, defeat, strike, revolt, overthrow, riot, march, demonstrate, rebel, campaign, agitate, organise…"
We do not need obscure Hegel-speak to help us out here.
Florence:
"Contadictions as you put it Rosa is something i do not understand. Contradictions however mean the opposite of a statement to be true, or be at variance with. Rosa, i happen to be one of those people who prescribe a word to mean what i understand it to mean. If someone else uses it to mean the opposite of what i understand, i do not persue that. Because in so doing, i realised i wasted a lot of my energies given my limited scope of thinking. So my apologies that i do not confuse myself by trying to understand the meaning of this word by reading your detailed meaning of contadiction in your link. Take it as my right to refuse to do so, and i will take it as your right to contadict me on my understanding of Mike's use of the word contradiction."
Fine, but then any conclusions you draw from your sally into subjective conventionalism (that is, deciding for yourself what words mean) will be just that: subjective --, and of little use in an objective appraisal of the politics on the ground.
The tragedy is that you do not need this word. We have countless thousands of words in ordinary language that allow us to talk of conflict, struggle and change, and in the minutest of detail (a list of a few of these was given in an earlier post of mine), and it does this far better than the wooden terminology we imported from that Idealist, mystic and *intellectual*, Hegel.
"What is of importance to me in Mike's detailed analysis of Chavez and Venezuela is that, Mike understands why these contradictions have arisen and how, we as Socialists should support Chavez and the Bolivarian revolution. The rest, I'll leave to intellectuals like you Rosa."
1) They are not contradictions, and Mike did not say why they were contradictions -- no one ever does, they just use that word in a lazy, unthinking sort of way, as a gesture to 'tradition'.
2) Mike is an intellectual.
3) I am working class.
4) I support Chavez just as much as Mike does.
Rosa - your instance on the question of your working class roots is very cute. your insistance on derailing actual debate with semantic nonsense, however, is most infuriating. Mike may be an intellectual, you may be working class - where does this leave us? How does it relate to the upheavals in Venezuela?
oh, and when were intellectual and working class counterposed?
oh, sorry, i just remembered where intellectual and working class were counterposed - in bourgoise and common sense commentary.
Well - there you are again Rosa accusing me of using Hegel's intellectual word 'contradict.' May is say it shows your subjective nature of how you persive other people's understanding of words and politics. I have never analysed Hegel, so i do not know what he means by contradiction. The reason i use contradiction here, is because everyone i speak to or with on a day to day basis is not intellectuals, have never read or heard of Hegel. Yet they understand the word just as i understand it.
Steffaction covers my second point about your disection of words to fit your steriotype of how they should or should not be used.
I am not defending Mike Gonzalez - that he will say for himself as he had to defend himself against me just at this last meeting. However, Mike Gonzelaz kept me sane at the Porte Alegro WSF. It was the first time i met him and i did not even know his credentials. I have had many political interventions with Mike since them, from Athens, to London, to Scotland. To call Mike an intellectual is to satisfy one's deranged use of words. My analysis of Mike is of someone who is well read and puts that into practice. I can assure you, I would feel insulted if someone labelled me because i refused to finish a PhD purely because I could teach the teachers who were well read in theory, but crap in the real politics of the day to day NHS. I am now well read into the politics of the left, but i will refuse to argue with people like you who exhaust a lot of energy in disecting theory - moreso pertaining to words.
I have nothing against Hegel and his use of words, because I am not a Hegelian. I am a Leninist who puts Lenin's and Trotsky's theory in practice. There is no where in Lenin's understanding of this real word, whereby he does so by splitting hairs as to the meaning of the words. Hence I said, I will not read your blog and I will never read it, because I am quite happy with my understanding of the words i use. I will only look into words if they prevent me from putting theory into practice. Its called 'assessing one's learning needs,' and so far your blog does not meet my requirement of my learning needs. But i am quite happy to debate and discuss with you on lenin's blog.
Steffaction:
"Rosa - your instance on the question of your working class roots is very cute. your insistance on derailing actual debate with semantic nonsense, however, is most infuriating. Mike may be an intellectual, you may be working class - where does this leave us? How does it relate to the upheavals in Venezuela?
oh, and when were intellectual and working class counterposed?"
1) Dialectical Marxiusm has been a long term failure.
2) Dialectical Trotskysim is even worse.
3) If truth is tested in practice, then our core theory (dialectics) has been refuted by history.
4) Hence it is not surprising that the confused thought that goes along with the ideas we inherited from Hegel has let us down.
5) In order to take revolutionary socialism forward (and the struggle in Venezuela), we need to excise all traces of Hegel from our theory.
6) Anything else will derail Marxism -- so my alleged derailing of this thread is small potatoes in comparison.
7) I did not counterpose workers to intellectuals, Florence did.
The problem is that petty-bourgeois intellectuals have contaminated revolutionary socialism with idea derived from ruling class thinkers like Hegel.
8) And why is what I have written 'semantic nonsense'?
Go on -- show me where I have gone wrong.
If you can...
Florence:
"Well - there you are again Rosa accusing me of using Hegel's intellectual word 'contradict.' May is say it shows your subjective nature of how you persive other people's understanding of words and politics. I have never analysed Hegel, so i do not know what he means by contradiction. The reason i use contradiction here, is because everyone i speak to or with on a day to day basis is not intellectuals, have never read or heard of Hegel. Yet they understand the word just as i understand it."
So, why are you using a term you do not understand -- or, if you prefer, one you wish to interpet in your own idiosyncratic way (and one that does not work, even in its own terms)?
And, it matters not whether others use this word -- Christians use the word 'Trinity', but that does not imply it means anything.
As I have shown, the Marxist use of this term is devoid of sense, and so it is little surprise to see that it has dropped our politics into the kind of confusion that has not served us well for 150 years.
No wonder history has refuted dialectical marxism.
Steffaction:
"oh, sorry, i just remembered where intellectual and working class were counterposed - in bourgoise and common sense commentary.
steffaction"
Pick a fight with Florence then, not me.
For my part, I am quite happy to learn from up-to-date Logic, not the mystical sub-Aristotelian stuff Hegel screwed around with.
But, as I suspect, you draw the line at modern thought like this.
Scientific intellectuals you ignore; mystical intellectuals you like.
Is that it?
Rosa: a simple (I hope) question.
Let us suppose a complex social process. Some elements in this process point towards proletarian (and hence human) emancipation. Other elements point in the opposite direction. All the elements are interconnected and cannot be easily detached from each other.
a) Do you accept that such processes exist in human history?
b) What word, other than "contradictory", would you use to describe such a process?
G&D:
"a) Do you accept that such processes exist in human history?"
Yes. I accept Historical Materialism in its entirety (minus Hegelian jargon)
"b) What word, other than "contradictory", would you use to describe such a process?"
'Contradictory" and "contradiction" are not the same, as I am sure you know.
But, waving aside that quibble, "contradictory" is the last word I would use (and for reasons I give at length at my site).
What would I use in its stead?
Well you yourself use many words to depict such processes (and without any hint of confusion), and there are many more in ordinary language that we could throw in.
*So, we do not need this word.*
At a stroke that eliminates all the problems I describe here:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/ros...-Explain-
Change
And, incidentally, we introduce into Historical Materialism a level of sophistication that wooden Hegelian gobbledygook disallows.
First you tell me that I use a word I do not understand - suit yourself Mister - got no time for shallow debates.
Then you ask steffaction to pick a fight with Florence. Get real - debates are educational - not fights. If someone picks a fight with me, I make sure I destroy them, because I never pick a fight with anyone.
If someone debates and discusses issues with me, I am grateful for that, because I have learned so much in debates - structural in my numerous degrees and other courses that I have done, in debates with friends and colleagues and debates like these. In debates like this Rosa - there are no losers or winners - those who are open minded learn, those who are close minded pick fights. I am sure there are those who understand your thread of debates - I do not - be it my own idiosycratic way of looking at things - accept that we all think differently and subsequently see things from different angles - be it use of words or how we lead our day to day lives. This world would be a better world if we accepted that and stopped forcing our pinhole view of life on others.
Another interesting discussion derailed and destroyed! Rosa go away and give us peace, please.
Florence:
"got no time for shallow debates."
Got no itme for getting your ideas clear, you mean.
"Get real - debates are educational - not fights."
I thought you fans of the dialectic believed everything was part of a 'struggle'.
Anyway, I fight for socialist ideas -- you do what you have to, or not.
"those who are open minded learn, those who are close minded pick fights."
But, it is you who refuses to learn something new -- and won't fight to defend your ideas.
That's called 'sticking your head in the sand', I believe.
Duncan:
"Another interesting discussion derailed and destroyed! Rosa go away and give us peace, please."
I would not want to upset a sensitive soul like you Duncan -- so yes, continue to entertain these confused, mystical ideas, for all the good it will do you.
And, welcome to another 150 years of failure...
[And, by the way, this thread only had two comments on it, and for two days before I waded in -- hardly a 'derail' then.]
"Another interesting discussion derailed and destroyed! Rosa go away and give us peace, please."
Indeed, are we haggling over a word? How about instead of contradiction we use smismar, or bananafritters?
More importantly (i.e. whatever's on mind mind) is Venezuela heading toward a coup attempt or not?
Roobin:
"Indeed, are we haggling over a word? How about instead of contradiction we use smismar, or bananafritters?"
If you at least try and think straight, comrade, it is not about a word, but about the confused thinking that goes with it.
[And we wonder why Dialectical Marxism is such an abject failure.]
You can have a million focused threads, totally un-'derailed' by me, but unless we get our core theory right, it is all a waste of time.
As far as I'm concerned your argument is a straw man, projecting your vision of others onto them and asking them to justfy it.
As far as the word goes I'll fall back on my current socialist icon (please, I'm being ironic) and ask do you use the words "disgrace" and "disaster", without being a catholic who believes is astology?
To sum up, are we heading for an 18th Brumaire of Raul Isaias Baduel?
Roobin:
"As far as I'm concerned your argument is a straw man, projecting your vision of others onto them and asking them to justfy it."
Well, then it will be easy for you to show us all where I go wrong, won't it?
[But, if you could do that, you would have doine it already, wouldn't you?]
"As far as the word goes I'll fall back on my current socialist icon (please, I'm being ironic) and ask do you use the words "disgrace" and "disaster", without being a catholic who believes is astology?"
Of course not, but you mystics use the word 'contradiction' almost exactly as Hegel did (after the alleged materialist flip has been inflicted upon it, that is).
As I show, this use of the word makes not one ounce of sense, and leads to the sort of confusions I outline here:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/ros...-Explain-
Change
And even more here:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/ros...-
Contradictions
Now, if you have something substantive to offer, let's hear it.
[Cue distant church bell... cue rustling leaves..., cue tumbleweed...]
Comrades, friends, brothers and sisters - Rosa has a big website filled with info and arguments on this. I suggest taking the discussion there. I suggest this sternly, you understand, but with the greatest of respect to all participants. I'm not calling a ban, but I really don't want threads about Venezuela or such topics to become threads about the bleeding dialectic.
Quite, so, I'm a bozo but I picked up on the wind of that meeting the possibility of a coup in Venezuela: what's the haps chaps?
They can actually discuss this with me at RevLeft, where there is more than adequate space to do so.
I am a moderator there, and will not delete their (no doubt) excellent comments.
By the way, thanks, Len, for being so tolerant. :)
Roobin, I don't think there is the slightest chance that the divided opposition could mount a coup against Chávez anytime soon - support for the revolution is too deep for the right to try that again.
The US, as Mike says in the talk, is too involved in destroying Iraq to concentrate on Venezuela (and this is where Latin America owes a huge debt of gratitude to the Iraqi resistence), and its involvement is reduced to sending a few cheques to the opposition, who have promptly pissed the money away doing absolutely nothing.
Meantime, I don't think Chávez would fly off to Iran, France and Portugal for a week, as he's doing right now, if he thought there was the slightest chance that the right would get their act together anytime soon !
I hope you do not mind len len. There is a conference on the legacy of Gramci - 70 years after his death hosted by the International Institute of Research and Education in Amsterdam on the 8/12/07 2:30 - 7:45. As an admirer of Gramci, I thought this might be of interest to some of your readers. Having attended one here in London and a session at Marxism, I am still going to attend this one. Any excuse to get out of London. Does anyone know the quickest and eco friendly form of transport from London to Amsterdam?
"Meantime, I don't think Chávez would fly off to Iran, France..."
Whoah, Chavez is in France...? Right now...? What is he doing?
He's inciting riot and rebellion, of course. Why do you think the strikes are happening?
Kidnap him. Stick him on a platform in the middle of Paris. Say: "speak"... He will speak and thousands will listen.
Commenting by HaloScan
