DEFINITIONS

Definitions are always imperfect but indispensable. We cannot talk seriously without defining the terms we use, these generally are set in advance, and they are customary.

So when we say "in the afternoon he/she visited us" most people understand what it is about. But, when communication is scientific, then the mass that uses it, defines the terms used with maximum precision. Such is the case of doctors, for them "syndrome" is a term with unambiguous meaning. The same for an engineer, the term “debutanization” does not confuse who understand this.

In politics complication is bigger: this is an activity where interests converge: culture, tradition, big and small struggles; we can say that it is the most human activity of all done by man. With it, it confuses reality with fiction, intentions with achievements; the truth is slippery, and lying is ethical, experimentation is impossible. It is the soul and territory of confrontation, material is subordinated to it, crime is an instrument, manipulation a virtue, and this often is a hindrance. Moral values ​​are changeable, history is written lecturing by the interested. Therefore, definitions are more blurring, but more necessary than any other area.

In politics, for example, calling "bastard" to a bad person can be manipulated to mean insult to an honourable lady, and thus attacking to an opponent's television show. Also "petit bourgeois" may signify an offence that annoys, when it is a technical term that indicates social relations. For that reason, it is useful to define what sense are we using the terms. Let's see.

In politics definition is clear, many times and for many people; it is not convenient, it does not allow comfortable movement, so it is branded of being dogmatic, rigid, and slightly wide.

For us, Revolutionary is defined primarily by its position face property of the means of production and consciousness. From this essence dislodges a set of characteristics, morals and ethics.

This definition is imperfect; it is a tool that let us move in the ambiguous sea of politics, it is a guide to action.

Being so, the thesis that postulate that Revolution is possible, in favour of Social Property of the means of production administered by the State, and the Consciousness of the Social Duty which intertwine within, and the integration of the fragmented society, would be revolutionary in the strict sense of the word, in the technical sense. This is the core that determines the search, the goal.

So, no one can feel offended if their theory does not fit into this definition, which is certainly not our invention, it is a decantation of the best universal revolutionary thought. Let no one be offended, you can be a good person, always on the side of the humble, but your thesis cannot be classified as Revolutionary.

Irreverence in the discussion, loyalty in action!

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