[Marxism] The criticism of religion[was:RE:Vnzla:reasonstobeoptimistic]

Nestor Gorojovsky nestorgoro at fibertel.com.ar
Mon Aug 27 17:12:23 MDT 2007


> Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 19:55:27 +0000
> From: dave.walters at comcast.net
> Subject: Re: [Marxism] The criticism of
>  religion[was:RE:Vnzla:reasonstobeoptimistic]
> 
> I've noticed, not just here, but on other lists as well, this obession
> over Chavez's rejection of "Marxism- Leninism" as a model for the PSUV.
> Chavez himself has never claimed to even be a "Marxist" let alone a
> "Marxist Leninist". Does the organization of the PSUV look like the
> organization of a M-L party? If  there is some sort of "Ah ha!" that is
> supposed to be elicited by this declaration? I hardly see what such a
> sentiment could be in response to.

Such sentiment may well be in response to the fact that the explicit 
rejection of Marxism Leninism as a theoretical framework shows that 
this Chávez, this man worthy of every support, this revolutionary 
that takes the torch from the hands of Fidel, is not (I repeat, is 
not) a Marxist (but is more Marxist than many self-appointed desktop 
revolutionaries). 

Maybe this sentiment is in response to the fact that in so explaining 
himself to the world and the masses, Chávez is establishing a clear 
divide between the Bolivarian Revolution and the [expropriation of 
expropiators / rejection of the wage system as a form of slavery / 
organic criticism of the capitalist mode of production] which defines 
Marxists as such.

Maybe this sentiment is in response to the fact that the Bolivarian 
Revolution is a national-democratic revolution, _bourgeois_ in its 
character, on the general line of the Revolutions led by Lázaro 
Cárdenas, Getúlio Vargas or Juan Perón, to cite just three names. 

Maybe this sentiment is in response to the fact that many "Leftist" 
supporters of Chávez want to support a _Chávez of their dreams_ 
because they, as Marxists, should _never ever_ support a bourgeois 
leader, but Chávez deserves their enlightened support, thus he must 
be socialist in agreement with the Marxist definition.

Well, he is not. He never was. His movement isn't. Then, when the 
leader "strikes back" or "strikes preemptively", in order to make 
sure that the movement does _not_ (repeat _not_) become "Marxist" (as 
if this meant anything today), they are taken aback by the unexpected 
development. "What? Is he against Marxism Leninism? Should we support 
him, then?"

Methinks _that is why this sentiment has arisen_.

But of course, as ever, maybe I'm wrong.

Este correo lo ha enviado
Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky
nestorgoro at fibertel.com.ar
[No necesariamente es su autor]
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 
"La patria tiene que ser la dignidad arriba y el regocijo abajo".
Aparicio Saravia
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 






More information about the Marxism mailing list