Psychological warfare onto Venezuelan people
“More
socialism to be worked out”, ask the people
Venezuelan
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 bourgeoisie, allied to US
imperialism. What kind of slander, would
you honestly ponder upon?
On the one
hand 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.
“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.’”[1]
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.” [2]
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.”[3]
“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).”[4]
“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.”[5]
“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.”[6]
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 eighteenth
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.”[7]
“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.”[8]
“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.”[9]
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’.”[10]
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.”[11]
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.
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.”[12]
(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.”[13]
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.”[14]
“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.”[15]
Communist News
La Nouvelle Vie
Réelle
marxistas-leninistas
latinas hojas
Le sourire de l’Orient
ARCHIVES
La Vie Réelle
Pour la KOMINTERN
now !
L’Humanité in
English
[2] Marx, The Civil War in France, The Third
Address, May 1871, www.marxists,org, 2011-11-06, page 1 of 10
[5] Tucker,
Robert C., The Marx-Engels Reader,
W.W. Norton & Company, New York-London, 1978, page 524
[10] Marx,K; Engels, F.; Lenin, V. On Historical Materialism, Progress
Publishers, Moscow, 1972, page 521
[12] Tisdali,
Simon, West ponders Putin problem,
The Guardian Weekly, Analysis, London, vol. 195, no. 20, 21-37 october 2016,
front page
[14] Marx, Karl;
Engels, Friedrich, Collected Works,
volume 10, 1849-1850, International Publishers, New York, 1978, pages
550-551
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire