Here's one Labour Party MP who has been taken in by Hugo Chavez's fauxialism: Colin Burgon. This stood out:
From the Spanish Civil War, to the coup in Chile and the apartheid struggle in South Africa, and now the solidarity campaigns around Cuba, Colombia, Venezuela and Honduras, the British left has stood up for democracy and justice.Hmm. So the Stalinists in Spain who murdered Andreu Nin and Castro's dictatorship which imprisoned Pablo Pacheco Avila are on the side of democracy and justice? So, no, Colin, actually Denis is more or less right about Chavez. Colin Burgon is akin to the likes of Stafford Cripps in the 1930s, refusing to condemn the Moscow trials because the Communist Party were supposedly on the right side in Spain.
Hugo Chavez also appears on Neil Clark's list of "lefties who didn't sell out", along with some other scumbags. Read Comrade Coates for the antidote.
This is not to say, by the way, that Chavez is an evil demon, just that he is no hero. Here's a more balanced view: David S with more on the Chavez movement and the Jews.
2. Fauxialism with Chinese characteristics.
Other fauxialists line up with Han Chinese chauvinism, such as some of the commenters on Andy Newman's post here. Contrast Andy's version to Blood & Treasure's.
Here's Louis P on the Stalin nostalgia of Socialist Unity and Noah and Calvin Tucker:
I first got the sense that something was amiss back in October 2008 when an excerpt from Georgi Dimitrov’s speech to the Seventh World Congress of the Communist International, 1935 appeared without comments on the Socialist Unity blog. Dimitrov is best known as the architect of the Popular Front strategy that led to a disaster in Spain, when the coalition between bourgeois parties and the CP took a hard line against the kind of radical measures that could have rallied the people against Franco.
In the comments section, Newman chided a Trotskyist for bringing up Spain since “the USSR was the biggest provider of arms to the Spanish republic by a country mile.” As somebody who spent a number of years in the British SWP, Newman obviously knew that this was not under dispute.
Here's Andy's response.
One of his tag-team partners Noah Tucker joined in with a burst of rhetoric that I have not seen since the 1960s:
Andy has already pointed out that the USSR armed (not disarmed) the Spanish Republican forces. Perhaps I should also remind you that it was the Soviet Union- and also China, the GDR, Czechoslovakia etc, and after 1960 Cuba, who provided the revolutionaries in the Third World with the munitions with which to fight imperialism.
Where do you think that the Koreans and the Vietnamese got their MiGs from? Who provided the ANC, and Zapu and Zanu with AK47s?
So there you have it. Revolutionary politics boils down to armaments. Who needs strategy and tactics when the Manual of Arms will suffice?[...]
So the question remains, what would attract radicals in 2009 to the Soviet leader who arguably was responsible for the counter-revolution of the 1990s? [...] The answer is to be found in the impotence of the left. Frustrated by the failure of the antiwar movement to have achieved success in Iraq or Afghanistan and by a never-ending diet of neoliberal economics, there is yearning for a muscular left that could have stood up to the capitalists. Despite his history of placating the imperialists, Stalin enjoys a reputation of implacability that owes more to Cold War stereotypes than reality. It is this mythology that has mesmerized Newman and the Tucker brothers and nothing else.
Incidentally, this is a follow up to Proyect's post on Winston Churchill nostalgia. There, Louis attacked two posts by Andy Newman (Popular Front Against Fascism, advertising some Philosophy Football products, and Churchill and the anti-fascist war), and an article by Christopher Hitchens. These are issues too complex to deal with today, but I think Andy is at least half right, and Hitchens almost completely right. Here's Andy's response. Andy is certainly right about Nicholson Baker, whose Human Smoke he describes as "widely ridiculed pseudo-history". For more on Baker, read Max Dunbar.
Note: the word "fauxialism" stolen from Michael Weiss. Except I just noticed he spells it faux-cialism. Which do you prefer?