I’m totally with you on how utterly dead sexy the idealized features of socialism are. Patty can testify. However, I’m sure we’ve both studied enough now to know that quite a few of our main man KM’s ideas (while utterly brilliant and original) are now quite dated, and in are stern need of either revision or outright rejection. The centralized planning of economies has recieved a great many blows to any claims of efficacy (which is not to say it couldn’t be done right, but it’s not looking good). And while it is entirely possible that the working classes will rise up on a country to country basis, the “Revolution” will likely never come on the wide scale we were once promised to believe. In many ways, this is where Bulldog-a-holes like Chavez are a good thing, changing systems in place to help those with the greatest need. However, changing these systems that benefit the rich and impoverish the poor must be done with temperment, as not to break them (the refferendum being a possible warning sign in Chavez’s case). The Northern European example, while frequently quoted, still provides the example of how socialism within a democracy can function. That is not to say a carbon copy of Norway’s healthplan would work in the US of A. Certainly there are many other concerns to be examined and as horrifying as this may sound, the American military serves a very important role in the world (one not being fufilled by our current middle east blunders).

This is getting MUCH longer than i’d anticipated, but in short:
Stalin – Bad, but did what many considered impossible. And committed impossible attrocities in the process.
Putin – Bad. Bad. Bad. Bad. (but Russia still loves him)
Chavez- If he wasn’t so sassy, he wouldn’t be so bad.
Socialism – Not as good as it used to be, still, there are bastions of hope.

As far as Russia is concerned, yeah, Putin is a choice sirloin d-bag. However, as a good Leninist-Trotskyist, I should note that democratic centralism was misrepresented and distorted (along with everything else!) by Stalin. As a structure for a revolutionary organization or party, it’s really efficient and actually does provide people at the bottom levels with a say in the direction of the party. The higher levels, in my understanding of it, are more of a forum for all the branches to talk about what worked and what didn’t and to set the general direction for the organization. The whole idea is that under socialism the state slowly fades back and only performs the functions that the state ought to be performing (ie taking care of people who can’t work, maintaining infrastructure, etc.).

Chavez is by no means the monster western media seems intent to paint him as, however his reactions to criticism border on the absurd (the recent incidents with Spain and Colombia). He’s a bit of a bulldog, when bulldogging is entirely unnecessary, and perhaps is packing a touch of a persecution complex. I couldn’t say for sure. He’s wearing red all the time too. If he’s so intent on making New Socialism, he should pick a new color. I mean, I like red, but there’s a lot of memories attached to it y’know? A lot of FAILURE in those memories. I think I nice mellow green is much more his style.

In any case, it’s funny that while everyone is freaking out about his referendum, in the midst, Putin is basically taking the quasi democracy that Russia has spent almost 20 years changing into, and slowly, and not so quietly making it back into a centralized democracy (which isn’t actually a democracy, kids.). It’s government for the people, but not by the people. And the scariest bit? The Russians are voting for it. They love the idea. Oh those kooky Rooskies.

CHANCE NO ONE EVER HAS ANYTHING GOOD TO SAY IN RESPONSE TO YOUR POSTS!