COUNTER-REVOLUTIONARY INTELLECTUAL BATTALION

For the battalion (negri hacnecker, dussel, dieterich, meszaros), Chavez is its biggest challenge, it already had obtained partial success: Porto Alegre got to distract during years the revolutionary forces, and Chiapas was a faded hope in these theories’ miasma.

Chavez’s arrival ramshackle all these theories, they had to restore the speech and suit it to the new situation, "philosophizing" to prevent that the Bolivarian Revolution follows its redemption’s path.

The battalion moved here, it quickly gains followers and positions to boost its distractions. While the battle was against the pro-coup extreme right they come into effect, but in April and December, when the crisis called forward, they showed his reformist character.

When Chavez announces anti-imperialism, anti-capitalism, and called this Revolution of Socialist, the battalion understood that the decisive moment of battle had come. The goal was and is: how to moderate the intentions of change, how to make them harmless.

So, it opens up inside the process an internal struggle between the distraction-reformism and the deepening of Revolution.

The battalion’s propositions come up as fungus: forums and books, they underpin it. In economics, they were proposed to avoid completely the social property, from cooperatives, endogenous centers, Social Production Companies. In the social field, they influenced on fragmentation. Politically, they hindered the party’s organization. In the cultural field, they sabotaged education, preventing the outbreak that a Revolution supposes.

However, reality is stubborn and showed that the counter-revolutionary battalion’s theories do not work. Their results were meager: there was the need to move forward, the wind of the confrontation forced to take revolutionary measures, it was deepened it, and the Permissive Revolution was abbreviated.

Now the battalion's theories are more explicit, its ideological bases appear more clearly, they are sharpened. Three final elements emerge strongly.

First, Revolution is "not possible", "it is recklessness", "it is not to be in tune with reality", "it is very good but is idealistic", "the real is to adapt to a kind of social democracy", a sort of "empowering the people" but not jeopardizing the system. So, people are just concerned to resolve their life, their environment, and do not look up to society, without focusing on the system.

Second, there is the rejection of the State, it is branded as Soviet, bourgeois, and it is intended to substitute it with forms that fragment society, making it incapable of political action.

The third element is to attack the leader; they know that there is no Revolution without a leader, so the story goes. How to do it? if his reputation is so great, the answer has several edges.

Some, including dussel, equal him to the social democratic leaders from the continent. Thus, Lula, Kirchner, Tavaré are the same as Chavez. To these social democratic leaders compare them with the socialist hope of this Bolivarian Revolution. Others dust off the hyper leadership theory.

One of the most important battles of Revolution is the confrontation with this battalion’s theories, and unmasks them as counter-revolutionaries.

Without Chavez there is no Socialism, there is no Socialism without Chavez!