The CIA certainly helped in both cases, but the actual state apparatus in both Venezuela and Chile worked against the socialists. In Chile, Pinochet used the capitalist military to coup Allende, in Venezuela companies and businesses resist any progress from the PSUV. The solution is to replace the capitalist state with a socialist one, which doesn’t make you immune to CIA influence, but does provide the basis for maintaining socialism domestically without retaining mechanisms that rely on private property to function.
All I’m getting is the US planted opposition during the Red Scare and did a foreign interference, again if the goal is to show reformism always fails you’re going to need to show an example that doesn’t involve a psychotic i.perialist state actor actively undemining it. A control, I’m asking for a control group here.
It’s not just Chile and Venezuela. The Paris Commune was overthrown because they didn’t march on Versailles. Reformism has never established socialism in history, while revolution has.
If we’re looking at defining things by how they resulted then we have a wholly different standard for argumentation here, but unless you want to find a different definition to suit your terms, it was a radical military takeover by the natiknal guard in the name of revolution that sought to implement progressive changes, yes? I’m not a historian so I’m kind of breezing through here but if they were a reform movement would have thought you were describing a parliamentary caucus but this doesn’t appear to be the case.
Either way, yeah, obviously if you leave an army standing in opposition you’re going to have a bad time. Still not a reform movement.
It wasn’t a reform movement, it was a failed revolution for the same reason reformism fails. They did not correctly target the state, and so the state was used to crush them. Allende and Venezuela are examples of reformism attempted, but even Venezuela relies heavily on the Bolivarian revolution to keep going.
You’re losing me. So you brought up a revolution to compare it to reformation, and in all cases it’s because the state is too powerful to reform so then… revolution is the way but only if we do it right?
Am I going crazy, is this not a really roundabout way to try and circular logic how nothing gets done until we dismantle a state first? Because then that is a whole other thing and I did not sign up for that. Just saying that’s how doesn’t describe how it’s even feasible.
You really need to work on being concise and accessible, this isn’t a classroom it’s a comment section.
And both of those examples were, I’m just gonna guess, subsumed by US CIA activity and not an organic failing of reformism.
So what’s the solution, revolution the CIA away? Does that sound like a good plan?
The CIA certainly helped in both cases, but the actual state apparatus in both Venezuela and Chile worked against the socialists. In Chile, Pinochet used the capitalist military to coup Allende, in Venezuela companies and businesses resist any progress from the PSUV. The solution is to replace the capitalist state with a socialist one, which doesn’t make you immune to CIA influence, but does provide the basis for maintaining socialism domestically without retaining mechanisms that rely on private property to function.
Again, concise.
All I’m getting is the US planted opposition during the Red Scare and did a foreign interference, again if the goal is to show reformism always fails you’re going to need to show an example that doesn’t involve a psychotic i.perialist state actor actively undemining it. A control, I’m asking for a control group here.
It’s not just Chile and Venezuela. The Paris Commune was overthrown because they didn’t march on Versailles. Reformism has never established socialism in history, while revolution has.
The Paris Commune was a reform movement?
This is why i don’t take you seriously.
No? The Paris Commune neglected to abolish the capitalist state.
If we’re looking at defining things by how they resulted then we have a wholly different standard for argumentation here, but unless you want to find a different definition to suit your terms, it was a radical military takeover by the natiknal guard in the name of revolution that sought to implement progressive changes, yes? I’m not a historian so I’m kind of breezing through here but if they were a reform movement would have thought you were describing a parliamentary caucus but this doesn’t appear to be the case.
Either way, yeah, obviously if you leave an army standing in opposition you’re going to have a bad time. Still not a reform movement.
It wasn’t a reform movement, it was a failed revolution for the same reason reformism fails. They did not correctly target the state, and so the state was used to crush them. Allende and Venezuela are examples of reformism attempted, but even Venezuela relies heavily on the Bolivarian revolution to keep going.
You’re losing me. So you brought up a revolution to compare it to reformation, and in all cases it’s because the state is too powerful to reform so then… revolution is the way but only if we do it right?
Am I going crazy, is this not a really roundabout way to try and circular logic how nothing gets done until we dismantle a state first? Because then that is a whole other thing and I did not sign up for that. Just saying that’s how doesn’t describe how it’s even feasible.