 The Boundary of the Venez Debacle
Chronologically this was the first advice that was part of the Venez Debacle although it was not finalised until Feb 18. Basically zandtao still does not know enough of Venezuela history to be advising about it - such an advice is now beyond his zandbagging boundaries. Throughout his ignorance has led to boundary errors that he has noted throughout the advice, and he would not have put this online except that he has referred to it elsewhere - this advice highlights knowledge as one of the needs of boundaries. The Venez Debacle was an extremely important process for zandtao to go through in order to understand what is required of his pathtivism - what is required of pathtivists.
Beginning the debacle
On 6 Jan zandtao had a youtube day with Venezuela, and out of it came two serious points that are well worth zandbagging:-
 bill was not circumspect and got propagandised
The Monroe doctrine - Hemisphere Day
In this advice as a warning zandtao will discuss how he became propagandised and then offer suggestions as to how to avoid such ignorance in the future; throughout he will note boundary errors. But this advice on the second point about the Donroe doctrine has far wider implications; the word "Donroe" will not be used again as it is an appeal to narcissism.
Getting propagandised
Getting propagandised is a risk for a pathtivist because pathtivists don't hold to the collective groups that arise in the isms. As a socialist he would not be questioning the socialism of Maduro because there would have been an ongoing stream of progressive advice that would have countered the mainstream propaganda - this stream is mostly just accepted by socialists. But as a pathtivist he takes every case as it comes, and in taking things as they come he is vulnerable to propaganda unless as a pathtivist he develops strategies of discernment to avoid this propaganda. In this case zandtao had not been discerning. Because of this boundary error, be circumspect about your responses - this advice may not help with understanding the Venezuela situation, but is more concerned with the pathtivist's process.
Chavistas - Bolivar Revolution
Early in retirement bill spent time coming to grips with global politics after having been immersed in the world of work; this was shown in STC blogging - at that time. Amongst that STC work there was a documentary "Beyond Elections" in which grassroots movements arising in Latin America were discussed; key amongst these movements was Chavez. [This movie was made in 2009 so there will surely be some update - boundary error.] These were important grassroots movements but they were not part of bill's life so once noted it was not in his active awareness or embodiment.
John Oliver
Later on in one of his progs John Oliver discussed Venezuela, at the time it felt wrong. There is a limit as to how far clear thinking can go with mainstream tv, and Venezuela and discussions about the destabilising of socialist states is not encouraged. This prog flagged the possible failings of Maduro.
What did John not do? He did not emphasise the sanctions. Now Chavez was conscious of imperialist restrictions so he attempted to make Venezuela an independent country; these sanctions had started with Chavez, but with Venez-resources such independence and resistance was possible. Nor did John discuss the coup attempts, assassination attempts and the strategies of civil disobedience that had started during Chavez. (Boundary error - zandtao is unclear as to the economic pressures the US placed on Venezuela including when there were sanctions).
BBC, Palin and Venezuela
Palin is a youthful trailblazer for bill, and after Monty Python he travelled and was accepted by the communities he travelled to. But Palin is liberal, and he makes progs for the Beeb that have "balance". But this Beeb balance does not allow for justification of socialist states and blanket criticism of empire strategies to destabilise them. So Palin in Venezuela was guaranteed to be subliminally critical of Maduro because of the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" - discussed below.
So because zandtao was not discerning, the liberalism of John Oliver followed by Palin liberalism gave zandtao the view that Maduro had gone very wrong - that he had separated from Chavez. So because he did not follow it closely, the creeping imperialism around Venezuela revolved around the dictatorship of Maduro, and so he could partially "accept" the kidnapping of a dictator, Maduro - even though he could never accept the sovereignty and invasion issues.
Investigating
This was the position his Jan 6 youtube investigations started from. He then investigated with China - CGTN, and then Al Jazeera. Now Al Jazeera is usually a good balance but they don't advocate for socialist states - surprise in Qatar? CGTN attacked the imperialism, and at this stage it sounded like socialist rhetoric. Then he watched John Oliver again, this sounded much more where he was currently at - that should have raised a flag. Then he came across an Empire Files critique of John Oliver, he listened and it sounded like rhetoric; his propagandised ego was still in control.
Then thankfully came Crispin Flintoff, and he was able to eschew the conditioning.
Before zandtao goes into the way his awareness was cleared, zandtao wants to point out a youtube issue. zandtao opened the clip "Leftist Debunks John Oliver's Venezuela Episode" from Empire Files, and there came this warning:-
Now zandtao presumes this is a coverall for youtube, but let's be clear:-
The only "danger" in this clip was the promotion of Venezuela as a socialist state, and giving the reasons why in this case John Oliver was in error and that John was promoting neoliberalism.
Let me point out again that zandtao did not initially accept this "Empire Files" view, his ego seeing it as anti-imperialist rhetoric.
Clarity
So to Crispin Flintoff. He began with a Venezuelan newspaper editor, and then turned to a representative of the Venezuela Solidarity Campaign. At this point zandtao began to see how he had been conditioned. Basically his promotion of pathtivism has been so critical of ditthupadana and the isms he had forgotten what they are good at - international solidarity and comradeship. At least now, Crispin, zandtao has corrected his view and there is a better balance with discernment.
[Boundary error - At this point zandtao had yoyo-ed to much more empathy for Maduro because he was trying to cope with the system-of-accumulation.]
Palin's Dictatorship
Palin was not wrong in seeing a level of dissatisfaction and a level of military authoritarianism. But his liberalism misinterpreted it - a liberal approach of if there is not overt freedom it is wrong. But what are the causes that limit this freedom? Observable fact - there are sanctions (Boundary error - zandtao is mainly certain there were US sanctions at the time Palin made this prog.) In his programme what was not observable as facts were the coup attempts, assassination attempts and a strategy of civil disobedience. If you have the prevention of legitimate trade through sanctions, ongoing coups, assassination attempts and a strategy of civil disobedience, how do you govern? (Boundary error - how much had these system-of-accumulation measures impacted on Venezuela?) Whether the government is good or bad, under those circumstances there needs to be military oversight; Palin never asked this question.
Marx recognised these counter-issues and called it the "dictatorship of the proletariat", and it has dire consequences. The causes of this dictatorship are external interference - economic interference through prevention of trade and ideological/political interference through the financing of the opposition. The dictatorship of the proletariat as a consequence of external interference deeply impacted the Soviet revolution, and contributed to the Stalinist dictatorship. A repeating pattern in Venezuela?
So a pathtivist has to ask whether this dictatorship is as a response to the external pressures or whether it is because of a regime, Maduro and supporters, themselves. zandtao has made his evaluation, here is Abby Martin's evaluation (worth listening to for its history) - no surprise there (zandtao suspects Abby would not like pathtivism because it is not deep-rooted in anti-imperialist struggle ie pathtivist strategy is harmony not struggle). There are plenty of views opposing Abby in mainstream media, it is up to you to decide.
[Boundary error - If zandtao is offering advice on a particular situation he ought to be far more knowledgeable. The inclusion of this blog is part of the Venez Debacle package, and not for info on Venezuela - seek better authorities.]
When zandtao was clear(er) he began to see how the Maduro kidnapping on hemisphere day was a significant beginning of the Monroe doctrine - the separation of the two global hemispheres.
Having looked at how zandtao was not discerning enough about conditioning, there are still important considerations pathtivism should have before deciding about Venezuela. What is happening in Venezuela has a historical precedent in Nicaragua, that zandtao is going to call the Sandinista Squeeze (referred to by Matt Kennard in Crispin's vid from 33.20 to 42.20).
Sandinista Squeeze
The Sandinista Squeeze happened when bill was active so he wants to give his take and look at comparisons. In 1979 FSLN overthrew the Somoza dictatorship in Nicaragua, and Daniel Ortega was a member of a junta that took control of Nicaragua; in 1984 he was voted in as president. The reforms that were brought in from 1979 were seen as very positive - the good side of socialism. FSLN were known as Sandinistas after an earlier revolutionary - comparison with Bolivaran revolution??
The Somoza dictatorship was backed by the Reagan regime, and Reagan had many dubious ties with Somoza. Following the revolution there were sanctions broken only at that time by the Soviets - and a Fair Trade movement of Nicaraguan coffee! Destabilisation within Nicaragua occurred through the US financing of the Contras - basically Somoza's personal guard - with much CIA involvement including training. There was a famous scandal at the time Iran-contra affair in which notoriously Ollie North sold weapons to Iran to fund the contras - allegedly.
Throughout the 80s there was the ongoing sanctions and internal destabilisation through the contras; this is bill's assessment at the time. Whilst Nicaraguan people mostly supported the FSLN (Sandinista revolution); even though there were many great community initiatives, the people suffered under the blockade and financed internal destabilisation. By the time the 80s came to a close, they were sick of the violence and economic difficulties and despite their support for the FSLN they voted in Violeta Chamorro because she promised an end to any war by compromising with the US.
Let me be specific about the squeeze:-
If the government continues to be socialist life will be made unbearable through internal destabilisation and an economic blockade. Have a leadership that will accommodate US interests, and the blockade and destabilisation will end.
Venezuela Now
zandtao suspects the US have been applying the Sandinista squeeze but Maduro has said no. (Boundary error - he should have far stronger advice than this). My understanding is that many Venezuelans are leaving because of the difficulties of living there. Yet Maduro keeps winning elections, Abby Martin again on Venezuela elections. Perhaps Trump admin thinks removing Maduro and continuing with the Sandinista Squeeze (or should I say Bolivaran Squeeze?) might find a compromise.
zandtao has a personal view on this that makes a signficant difference between the Sandinista Squeeze and the Bolivaran Squeeze. The Monroe doctrine is an America First business plan supported by the coercion of US military might. The Monroe doctrine is focusing on trade (similar to the China Trade Empire), so the squeeze is to enable trading with the US whether by Delcy Rodriguez (acting president) or others. bill thinks that the Sandinista Squeeze on NIcaragua was concerned with ideology, America First wants profits.
Maria Corina Mochado
Is Maria Corina Mochado Venezuela's Violeta Chamorro? It is worth listening to what she says - Crispin's vid from 26.08 to 27.20. To be fair to Trump he did not push her after the kidnap - but that might have been a "kiss of death" for her. Why does she have a peace prize?
Clinging to Socialism
Listening to Crispin's vid gave zandtao clarity as to the forces in play, but Crispin is socialist so listening to Crispin without discernment would lead a pathtivist into the isms. This whole issue dragged for zandtao until he realised that he was clinging to an old socialist ego - there was residue that the pathtivist hadn't let go (see Venez Debacle). Whilst Crispin's vid gave clarity to the forces in play because of being immersed in the isms, he also accepted the isms; but there is a big question is it not harmful for a country to accept socialism?
Choosing Socialism
In a good world the choice of socialism might well not be harmful as socialism is concerned with the good of the majority. But in a world of the Monroe doctrine in a country in Latin America choosing socialism can cause economic hardship for the people. Is socialism better or worse for the people? Is socialism better or worse for the leaders who choose socialism? The harm is caused by the system-of-accumulation, the level of harm depends on how much the system-of-accumulation is confronted and how strong the compassion forces within the system-of-accumulation are. But it is people who receive the harm - it is the people who suffer.
Rising of Marxism
Venezuela is yet another country that has had to go through the hell of the "dictatorship of the proletariat". Since Marx there has been only one country that has come out of socialism smiling and that is China and that is because China has traded the hell out of socialism. Is China socialist?
Let's be clear - in this hegemony the system-of-accumulation causes harm to socialist countries. It has almost become absurd because compassion went intellectually crazy and clung to socialism without using discerning wisdom. Mid-19th century a German academic sat in a North London library, and began to see the first signs of the system-of-accumulation. At that time the working-class (proletariat) were becoming educated, and in that education Marx saw the possibility of their seeing why their education was what was creating profits - marginal costs. The bourgeoisie with their capital did nothing but buy plant, Marx rightly saw the quality in the proletariat.
But why would a system of landlords turned capital-providers give up power? So Marx concluded class war and a need for revolution. There had never been such a war so it was not unreasonable for Marx to conclude that if given a push the class would unite in their own interests. Sadly that has not happened and all revolutions have failed - except perhaps China. And why did these revolutions fail? Because the system-of-accumulation is too powerful for one country to survive.
An Overview of Revolutionary Struggles
zandtao is expressing a personal view of these historic struggles, each seeker must make their own assessment as to how they see the situation.
Let's start with Russia. If ever there was a people being exploited it was the Russians under the Tsar. At the beginning of the 20th century revolutionaries inspired by Marx and his ilk began to see the possibilities of revolution in Russia, and eventually the Bolsheviks started up. Remember Bolshevik means minority, it was not the class fighting - it was a minority. Then there was hell as global capital - mainly Europe - backed the white generals of the Romanov dynasty, and war was fought based on that money. Eventually there was not enough money to maintain the war, and Lenin led a Marxist-Leninist government of the people. But although there was not enough money to fight a war, there was enough to destabilise. After Lenin's death Stalin countered the destabilisation with the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat", and people lived in hell. Because it was a Marxist theory such a dictatorship was considered acceptable by Marxist intellectuals but was it for the Russian people? They suffered when they were subjugated by the dictatorship. The USSR became a stagnant dictatorship until Gorbachev said our assets are our people with ingenuity - Glasnost and Perestroika; when our Russian people are free to express themselves USSR will become great or fail trying. They failed trying, and we now have Putin.
Cuba is now poverty-stricken because of sanctions. Back in post-war times Cuba was a playground for the US, a few got rich but most were poor. This exploitation was the fertile ground of the revolution throughout the 50s where Castro amongst others inspired the revolution. When he got into power he was popular, and developed peoples' projects. In the time of the Cold War they had the USSR as a trading partner but slowly the standard of living fell, but at the end of the Cold War sanctions kicked in. Yet Castro remained popular. Trump is applying sanctions now. Is Cuba the threat of a good example or a warning with its poverty?
The "Nicaragua - threat of a good example?" was the title of a booklet produced by Oxfam following the Sandinista revolution discussed in this advice as the Sandinista Squeeze. Again the revolution was popular but was not sustainable because of US sanctions and financed internal destabilisation. There was poverty but they avoided "dictatorship of the proletariat" because Ortega the leader was voted out.
Amidst China's 20th century of hell there arose the communism of Mao Tse Tung. The phase of communism in the century of hell just added to the hell but in the last decade China started to trade its way out of poverty, and now the China Trade Empire is a threat to the Monroe doctrine - see here. China does not waste money on military and is establishing a trade network (BRI) but is it communist? Are the people who are profiting from the China Trade Empire accumulating? Are these wealthy people just falling in line with the state whose China Trade Empire is expanding - mutual interest? Whilst Trump calls China communist is that just past-thinking? However of all the countries who have had revolutions China is the only one that is benefitting their people. zandtao questions whether it is a socialist revolution that guides China, or whether it is the fear of the "century of hell".
Back to Venezuela
Maduro has chosen or been forced into the "dictatorship of the proletariat", zandtao assumes that Chavez' attempts to make the economy independent and self-sufficient failed amidst the financed internal destabilisation.
No country is full of socialist intellectuals. In Latin America people turn to socialism when US imperialism impacts them. It seems that this has temporary good benefits that must be fought for; but whilst good projects may last, sanctions and destabilisation create poverty, and people turn to Chamorro-like appeasement - unless there is dictatorship. And if there is dictatorship, they understandably leave.
Have socialist/class revolutions ever produced benefits? Have they produced long-term benefits? Would the Tsar have changed, was the USSR revolution worth it? Similarly in Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela?
The system-of-accumulation mainly through the US is never going to allow a socialist revolution where the new government controls the resources - especially in the US hemisphere of the Monroe doctrine. US trade is based on granting favours whilst having military control, the China Trade Empire appears different and this is why they are more successful. And why the Monroe doctrine now sees them as a threat.
Genuine socialism can never happen. The bourgeoisie - now known as the 1% - are now reduced to being owners of capital for investment. Governments do their work maintaining the system-of-accumulation. Even if there were a socialist revolution such revolutions cannot survive because of sanctions and financed destabilisation. So it would require a socialist revolution within the hegemonic power, is that going to happen? The US electoral process is owned, and is potentially the most crooked electoral system globally with its PACs, that basically says the election is bought off. And even if it were somehow fair, individuals could always be bought off.
Between sanctions, destabilisation, systemic and personal corruption there is no way the system-of-accumulation will allow socialism, governments must do the best they can for their people.
The Suffering that is in Venezuela
It is not clear to zandtao whether Maduro was clinging to power through dictatorship. But what is clear is that Maduro was not cooperating with the US - not being coerced by its narcissism and military control. But basically the Venezuelan people are being harmed by the forces in play. Sanctions are imposed so Venezuela cannot trade. Perhaps they can develop a self-sufficient economy as Chavez proposed. No - not when the opposition is financed to cause coups and destabilisation. Whilst Venezuelan people support Chavez - and possibly Maduro, they have to be able to bring up their families in freedom with jobs. That is not happening primarily because of interference through sanctions and financed destabilisation, so the people leave because of this harm.
The Suffering the system-of-accumulation causes Socialist Countries
Whilst revolutionary fervour and initial positive changes might attract people to the stuggle, after a while such struggles esp in the US hemisphere cannot deliver and the daily life of ordinary people starts to suffer. This is inevitable based on the nature of the system-of-accumulation in the US. This realistic view of what happens means that there will always be suffering if socialism is attempted - if there is a revolution - change of ruling class - outside the US. Whilst the Progressive International might call for Nuestra America it can only happen through the suffering of Latin American people.
Pathtivism is the response of least suffering
Young people get educated, reject the system-of-accumulation and turn to socialism because that is all that appears to be on offer. Basically they invest in socialism because there is no other choice for compassion. Nothing wrong with socialism as a utilitarian idea but it is unrealistic to think the system-of-accumulation will ever allow socialism. Pathtivism as government is an equal pipedream but it can never cause suffering the way revolution does.
Strategies for avoiding conditioning
Ditthupadana - do not reject the understanding of the isms because they lack harmony. The progressive international would have been a good source on Venezuela.
Do not reject socialist rhetoric out-of-hand.
Listen to nationals from solidarity campaigns.
When it comes to socialism, western media have a vested interest to be biased.
Be very careful of sources esp with unwitting bias.
Recognise the harm and suffering that can arise from revolutionary change.
And always:-
Remember what is required of a pathtivist and the risk of getting sucked in.
| RADICAL LOVE AS GRASSROOTS ACTIVISM |
 | | RADICAL LOVE AS PATHTIVISM |
|
|
Books:-