******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ********************
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*****************************************************************
On 24 Mar 2019 at 9:42, michael a. lebowitz via Marxism wrote:
> J Green described my view of Venezuela and socialism as follows:
>
> "This is
> the same Lebowitz who talks about about how Venezuela is a model of
> socialism for the 21st century and lauds its democracy as an alternative to
> the "real socialism" of the Soviet model. ("What Is Socialism for the
> Twenty-First Century?",
> https://monthlyreview.org/2016/10/01/what-is-socialism-for-the-twent
> y-first-century/)."
> This is simply an idiotic distortion. Green should try
> reading.
So let's read what you wrote in 2016, that is, during Maduro's presidency, in
the
article titled "What Is Socialism for the Twenty-First Century?"
Consider the subsection labelled "The Key Link". It begins:
"So, let us explain what socialism for the twenty-first century is. There are
lessons
to be learned from the experiences of the twentieth century, and the Bolivarian
Constitution of Venezuela adopted in 1999, reflects many of those lessons. They
are evident in Article 299's emphasis upon 'ensuring overall human
development,', in the focus of Article 102,...in Article 62's declaration ....
They are
present in the identification of democratic planning and participatory
budgeting at
all levels of society. They are visible in the focus in Article 70 on
'self-management, co-management, cooperatives in all forms' as examples of
'forms of association guided by the values of mutual cooperation and
solidarity.'
Lastly, they can be seen as obligations noted in Article 135..."
(https://monthlyreview.org/2016/10/01/what-is-socialism-for-the-twenty-first-centur
y/)
There is no qualification that Maduro is reversing this, or that the "top-down
orientation" dominated in reality despite the words of the constitution.
And in 2012, you wrote that:
"...The society we want to build is one that recognizes that 'the free
development
of each is the condition for the free development of all.' How can we ensure,
though, that our communal, social productivity is directed to the free
development
of *all* rather than used to satisfy the private goals of caitalists, groups of
indiiduals, or state bureaucrats? A second side of what President Chavez of
Venezuela called on his 'Alo Presidente' program in January 2007 the
'elementary triangle of socialism' concerns the distribution of the means of
production. 'Social ownership of the means of production' is that second side.
Of
course, it is essential to understand that social ownership is not the same as
state
ownership. Social ownership implies a profound democracy -- one in which
people function as subjects, both as producers and as members of society, in
determining the use of the results of our social labor."
This is from the introduction, entitled "New Wings for Socialism", of your book
"Contradictions of Real of Real Socialism: The Conductor and the Conducted", p.
19. Now, isn't the term "new wings" another way of referring to models?
>I have never described Venezuela as a model of socialism; rather, I
> have stressed that there has been a struggle for socialism within it
Unless one regards socialism as a platonic, changeless perfection, there is no
contradiction between saying there are struggles within a certain society, and
that
it is a model of socialist progress in the present. Moreover, socialism is
generally
used at present to mean a society moving towards the final communist future.
Your argument reduces to that you didn't use the precise word "model" (I
didn't say you had) , but used Venezuela as an example in describing the "new
wings" of socialism and for understanding "what is socialism for the 21st
century".
>
> ... This is a process that has been described by Chavez as one of
> creating the cells of a new socialist state.
There it is again, in your own words.
> As for not bothering to meet with the 'critical chavistas'
> or PSOL leaders, I assume Fred Fuente's interest was in exploring what was
> happening at the base rather than meeting [in the limited time
> available] leaders with no followers whose positions are well-known.
You keep changing your story. Let's see. Now you claim that Fuentes couldn't
find any left-wing critics of Maduro at the base or any left-wing critics with
any
following,whereas before you said they were connected to imperialism. At a time
where every serious account notes that discontent with Maduro, and
participation
in protests, has spread to some of the neighborhoods which were Chavista
strongholds, Fuentes just couldn't find anyone worth talking to.
It's just nonsense. If Fuentes he didn't find anyone, he was stuffing fingers
in his
ears and wearing a blindfold, and it seems blindfolds are the one thing that
isn't in
short supply in Venezuela. The claim that there was no one worth talking to in
the
opposition is the same denigration of the opposition, the same name-calling,
the
same contempt for democracy, that has been typical of old-style
state-capitalist
regimes. You appeal to "profound democracy" in your writings, but claim there
aren't any Venezuelan critics of Maduro even worth talking to. If you continue
to
maintain this, then it will be an example of hypocrisy in the 21st century.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_________________________________________________________
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at:
https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
