Psychological warfare onto Venezuelan people

More socialism to be worked out, ask the people

By Daniel Paquet                                                                           dpaquet1871@gmail.com

La Nouvelle Vie Réelle:                                                               http://.lnvr.blogspot.com  

Venezuelan national bourgeoisie had never whatsoever agreed upon with the people’s regime established by Hugo Chavez alongside with democratic sections of the army.  Some years ago, there was a failed attempt to overthrow his government.  Later on, Chavez deceased and the Right expected that it would be then easier to topple the leadership and replace him.  Tough luck (!), it did not occur that way.  However, like good pupils of Nazi Propaganda Minister, Joseph Goebbels, they disseminate (up to recently) every lie possible, in ‘professional’ manner, to contest the Madero government and destabilize the country, hoping to bring back to power the national bourgeoisie allied to US imperialism.  What kind of slander, would you honestly ponder upon?

The answer:  just like anywhere else in the world, while aimed at local ‘consumption’.  Here is a classic piece in UK:  “Pity the luckless children of Aleppo,  If only the bombs raining down on  them, killing their parents, maiming their friends, destroying their hospitals – if only those bombs were British or, better still, American.  Then the streets of London would be jammed with protesters demanding an end to their agony.  Whitehall would be a sea of placards, insisting that war crimes were being committed and that these crimes were Not in Our Name.  The protesters would wear Theresa May masks and paint their hands red.  And they would be doing it all because, they’d say, they could not bear to see another child killed in Aleppo.  But that is not the good fortune of the luckless children of that benighted city.  Their fate is to be terrorized by the wrong kind of bombs, the ones dropped by Bashar al-Assad and Vladimir Putin.”[1] (sic)

This ‘allegation’ has nothing to do with the bombings, but denunciate the British Stop the War Coalition that mobilized the people in UK to condemn Russia and let Vladimir Putin off the hook.   But was it not the West that engineered the war in Syria?  Any citizen, in Europe especially, in Canada and USA as well, should feel concerned by the war waged onto Syria.  In parallel, everyone should be part of the solution in Venezuela by preventing well-to-do elite and US to move further with their maneuvers against the socialist power in this South-American country. 

On the other hand, “it is impossible, because civilized society is split into antagonistic, and, moreover, irreconcilably antagonistic classes, the ‘self-acting’ arming of which would lead to an armed struggle between them.  A state arises, a special power is created, special bodies of armed men, and every revolution, by destroying the state apparatus, clearly demonstrates … how the ruling class strives to restore the special bodies of armed men which serve it, and how the oppressed class strives to create a new organization of this kind, capable of serving not the exploiters but the exploited.”[2]

The situation is such because, “the first fact that has been established with complete exactitude by the whole theory of development, by science as a whole – a fact that was forgotten by the utopians, and is forgotten by the present-day opportunists who are afraid of the socialist revolution – is that, historically, there must undoubtedly be a special stage or a special phase of transition from capitalism to Communism.  Marx continues:  ‘between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other.  There corresponds to this also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.’”[3]

Nevertheless, Marx recognized that in the case of the Commune de Paris (1871), “armed Paris was the only serious obstacle in the way of the counter-revolutionary conspiracy.” [4]

Further, “the National Guard (in Paris) reorganized themselves and entrusted their supreme control to a Central Committee elected by their whole body, save some fragments of the old Bonapartist formations. (…)  Out of 300,000 National guards, only 300 responded to this summons to rally around little Thiers against themselves. The glorious working Men’s Revolution of March 18 took     undisputed sway of Paris.  The Central Committee was its provisional government. (…) From March 18 to the entrance of the Versailles troops into Paris, the proletarian revolution remained so free from the acts of violence in which the revolutions – and still more the counter-revolutions – of the ‘better classes’ abound. (…)  Even the sergents-de-ville, instead of being disarmed and locked up, as ought to have been done, had the gates of Paris flung open wide for their safe retreat to Versailles. (…) This indulgence of the Central Committee – this magnanimity of the armed working men (was) misinterpreted as mere symptoms of conscious weakness.”[5]

“But it would be ludicrous today to attempt recounting the merely preliminary atrocities committed by the bombarders of Paris and the fomenters of a slaveholders’ rebellion protected by foreign invasion.  Amidst all these horrors, Thiers, forgetful of this parliamentary laments on the terrible responsibility weighing down his dwarfish shoulders, boasts in his bulletins that l’Assemblée siège paisiblement  (the Assembly continues meeting in peace.”[6]

“Only when we have established this life-giving principle (i.e. solidarity) on a sound basis among the numerous workers of all countries will we attain the great final goal which we have set ourselves.  The revolution must be carried out with solidarity; this is the great lesson of the French Commune, which fell because none of the other centers – Berlin, Madrid, etc. – developed great revolutionary movements comparable to the mighty uprising of the Paris proletariat.”[7]

“By dictating the republic to the Provisional Government and through the Provisional Government to the whole of France, the proletariat stepped into the foreground forthwith as an independent party, but at the same time challenged the whole of bourgeois France to enter the lists against it.  What it won was the terrain for the fight for its revolutionary emancipation, but by no means this emancipation itself.”[8]

“With (the) general prosperity, in which the productive forces of bourgeois society develop as luxuriantly as it at all possible within bourgeois relationships, there can be no talk of real revolution.  Such a revolution is only possible in the periods when both these factors, the modern productive forces and the bourgeois productive forms come in collision with each other.  (…)  From it all attempts of the reaction to hold up bourgeois development will rebound just as certainly as all moral indignation and all enthusiastic proclamations of the democrats.   A new revolution is possible only in consequence of a new crisis.  It is, however, just as certain as this crisis.”[9]

Venezuela and Socialism

“Modern socialism is, in its essence, the direct product of the recognition, on the one hand, of the class antagonism existing in the society of today between proprietors and non-proprietors, between capitalists and wage-workers; on the other hand, of the anarchy existing in production.  But, in its theoretical form, modern socialism originally appears ostensibly as a more logical extension of the principles laid down by the great French philosophers of the eight-centh century.  Like every new theory, modern socialism had, at first, to connect itself with the intellectual stock-in-trade ready to its hand, however deeply its roots lay in material economic facts.   The great men, who in France prepared men’s minds for the coming revolution, were themselves extreme revolutionists.  They recognized no external authority of any kind whatever.  Religion natural science, society, political institutions – everything was subjected to the most unsparing criticism:  everything must justify its existence before the judgment seat of reason or give up existence.  Reason became the sole measure of everything.”[10]

“The materialist conception of history starts from the proposition that the production of the means to support human life and, next to production, the exchange of things produced, is the basis of all social structure; that in ever society that has appeared in history, the manner in which wealth is distributed and society divided into classes or orders is dependent upon what is produced, how it is produced, and how the products are exchanged.  From this point of view the final causes of all social changes and political revolutions are to be sought, not in men’s brains, not in men‘s better  insight into eternal truth and justice, but in changes in the modes of production  and exchange.  They are                   to be sought not in the philosophy, but in the economics of each particular epoch.”[11]

“The state is, therefore, by no means a power force on society from without, just as little is it ‘the reality of the ethical idea,’  the image and reality of reason,’ as Hegel maintains.  Rather, it is a product of society at a certain stage of development; it is the admission that this society has become entangled in an insoluble contradiction with itself, that it is cleft into irreconcilable antagonisms which is it powerless to dispel.  But in order that these antagonisms, classes with conflicting economic interests, might not consume themselves an society in sterile struggle, a power seemingly standing above society became necessary for the purpose of moderating the conflict, of keeping it within the bounds of ‘order’; and this power, arisen out of society, but placing itself above it, and increasingly alienating itself from it, is the state.”[12]

We dealt with philosophy and politics, but we shall not forget and “we all know the dictum of Clausewitz, one of the most famous writers on the philosophy and history of war, which says: ‘War is a continuation of policy by other means’.”[13]

Let us deepen our knowledge on Historical Materialism, and namely the character of wars.

“From the point of view of Marxism, that is, of modern scientific socialism, the main issue in any discussion   by socialists on how to assess the war and what attitude to adopt towards it is this:  what is the war being waged for, and what classes staged and directed it.  We Marxists do not belong to that category of people who are unqualified opponents of all war.  We say:  our aim is to achieve a socialist system of society, which, by eliminating the division of mankind into classes, by eliminating all exploitation of man by man and nation by nation, will inevitably eliminate the very possibility of war.  But in the war to win that socialist system of society we are bound to encounter conditions under which the class struggle within each given nation may come up against a war between the different nations, a war conditioned by this very class struggle.  Therefore, we cannot rule out the possibility of revolutionary wars, i.e., wars arising from the class struggle, wars waged by revolutionary classes, wars which are of direct and immediate revolutionary significance.  Still less can we rule this out when we remember that though the history of European revolutions during the last century, in the course of 125-135 years, say, gave us wars which were mostly reactionary, it also  gave  us revolutionary wars, such as the war of the French revolutionary masses against a united monarchist, backward, feudal and semi-feudal Europe.”[14]

Socialism is not a sanguinary regime, but it must defend the gains the revolution and amplify the achievements of the people, of the working class and the betterment of its daily life.

“We are constantly witnessing attempts, especially on the part of the capitalist press- whether monarchist or republican –, to read into the present war (1917) an historical meaning which it does not possess.”[15]

For instance, we may take the time to analyze the conclusions of NATO and US imperialism in general about the current war in Syria, and the supposedly secret agenda of Russia.

“British foreign secretary Boris Johnson’s suggestion that the UK, US and other allies are re-examining ‘military options ‘in Syria has sharply focused minds on a phenomenon western politicians have spent the last 15 years trying not to think about: post-Soviet Russia’s determined drive to re-establish itself as a major global power and the willingness of its ruthless and tactically astute leader, Vladimir Putin, to employ almost any means, including use of force, to achieve that end.  Military options are indeed being discussed again in Washington.  The key question is no longer how best to remove the Syrian dictator, Bashar al-Assad. It is how to stop the Russian military.”[16] (sic!)

War onto Syria is reactionary.  War onto Russia is reactionary.  Let Mr. al-Hassad come up with a political solution to the crisis in his country!  We shall consider that “socialism means the abolition of classes.  The dictatorship of the proletariat has done all it could to abolish classes (in Russia).  But classes cannot be abolished at one stroke.”[17]

Latin America, guerilla and traditional warfare

“… the degree of wealth and education connected with (the) stage of social development is… required… in order to provide the required number of trained officers and to give the soldier himself the required degree of intelligence. (…)  The considerable extension of patrol and foraging expeditions, outpost duties, etc., the greater activity demanded of every soldier, the more frequent recurrence of cases in which the soldier has to act on his  own and has to rely on his own intellectual resources, and, finally, the great importance of skirmish engagements in the fighting, the success of which depends on the intelligence, the coup d’oeil and the energy of each individual soldier – all this presupposes a greater degree of education of the non-commissioned officer and rank-and-file soldier.”[18]

“Like mobility, the mass character of means of attack is necessarily the result of a higher stage of civilization, and, in particular, the modern (19th century) proportion of the armed mass to the total population is incompatible with any state of society inferior to that of the emancipated bourgeoisie. (…)  The emancipation of the proletariat, too, will have its particular military expression; it will give rise to a specific, new method of warfare.   Cela est clair. It is even possible already to determine the kind of material basis this new warfare will have. (…) Without the electric telegraph (Internet, nowadays, -Ed.) it is quite impossible to direct (the armies); and since in the case of such masses it is impossible for the strategist and the tactician (who is in command on the battlefield) to be one and the same person, division of labour comes into effect here. (…)  At that time (1789, the Great French Revolution, -Ed.) – at least between 1792 and 1794 – the proletariat was in such a state of ferment and tension as will only recur in the near future.  At that time it already became evident that in revolutionary wars with violent internal convulsions the mass of the proletariat is needed for use within the country. (…)  Hence the proletariat will be able to send only a small contingent to the active army; the main source of the levy remains the mob and the peasants.  That is to say, the revolution will have to wage war with the means and by the methods of the general modern warfare.  Summa summarum, the revolution will have to fight with modern means of war and the modern art of war against modern means of war and the modern art of war.”[19]

Since they are now negotiations in Venezuela between the legitimate government and the Right, it would be premature to torpedo those talks by threats. Thus, it is highly responsible for the forces of the left to demonstrate its willingness to come up to a fair solution in the spirit of peace and progress for the people.  But, we must keep an eye opened.

 

 

Archives: La Vie Réelle (in French)                                                         www.laviereelle.blogspot.com

                  Pour la KOMINTERN now !                      www.pourlakominternnow.blogspot.com

 

La Nouvelle Vie Réelle                                                                                www.lnvr.blogspot.com

Ideological Fightback (USA)                                       http://ideologicalfightback.blogspot.com

---

[1] Freedland, Jonathan, Russia is the key to stopping war in Syria, The Guardian Weekly, Comment&Debate, London, 21.10.16, page 18

[2] Lenin, V.I., The State and revolution, Foreign Languages Press, Peking, 1970, page 7

[3] Ibidem, The State and revolution, page 73

[4] Marx, The Civil War in France, The Third Address, May 1871, www.marxists,org, 2011-11-06, page 1 of 10

[5] Ibidem, The Civil War in France, page 2 and ss.

[6] Ibidem, The Civil War in France, page 9 of 10

[7] Tucker, Robert C., The Marx-Engels Reader, W.W. Norton&Company, New York-London, 1978, page 524

[8] Ibidem, The Marx-Engels Reader, page 587

[9] Ibidem, The Marx-Engels Reader, page 593

[10] Ibidem, The Marx-Engels Reader, page 683

[11] Ibidem, The Marx-Engels Reader, page 700-701

[12] Ibidem, The Marx-Engels Reader, page 752

[13] Marx,K; Engels, F.; Lenin, V. On Historical Materialism, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1972, page 521

[14] Ibidem, Lenin, On Historical Materialism, pages 520-521

[15] Ibidem, Lenin, On Historical Materialism, page 522

[16] Tisdali, Simon, West ponders Putin problem, The Guardian Weekly, Analysis, London, vol. 195, no. 20, 21-37 october 2016, front page

[17] Ibidem, Lenin, On Historical Materialism, page 645

[18] Marx, Karl; Engels, Friedrich, Collected Works, volume 10, 1849-1850, International Publishers, New York, 1978, pages 550-551

[19] Ibidem, Collected Works, volume 10, pages 553, 555, 556