Venezuela Votes Yes

[dmcauliffe09]

Hugo Chávez, president of Venezuela, will be eligible to run fo reelection after a yes vote from the Venezuelan proletariat secured a law that will allow presidents to run for more terms. Chávez is, in my opinion, playing out the role of "dictator of the proletariat." The United States and its capitalist minions will try to paint Chávez as an evil anti-democratic communist, but when there is a majority "yes" vote, it is evident that the people (the proletariat) are behind him. No revolution can succeed without the backing of the people, and had the vote been "no," we would have seen another failed attempt at socialist revolution. But this is a new day for socialism, and hopefully in these turbulent economic times, capitalist society will finally meet its demise.

Thoughts??

[Pogue]

Good stuff.

[scarletghoul]

Pretty cool, yeah.

[apathy maybe]

Hah, you believe that?

What has Chávez managed in the last ten years? Have the poor got richer and the rich poorer?

What concrete changes can supporters point to, and say "if Chávez isn't in power, this will be rolled back", or "without Chávez, this couldn't have happened"?

People who say that Chávez are essential to the "socialist revolution" are falling into two traps.

The first, is the "great men of history" trap, that says that individuals, "great men" (rarely women) make history.

The second is that reformism actually works. If it did work, we would have seen more than the pitiful changes made to Venezuelan society that have been made. We would see more workers in control of the means of production, we would see less government, less controls of social life, less rich bastards etc. etc.

The belief that government can bring about positive long term change is as deluded as the belief that god can. (I don't need to add that markets don't work either, but in other forums I sometimes think I should.)

[Cumannach]

Well he's not Pinochet. He has that going for him. The US would love to put in a Pinochet.

[Yazman]

Well he's not Pinochet. He has that going for him. The US would love to put in a Pinochet.

Or an Uribe ;)

[jake williams]

The Chávez Administration at 10 Years: The Economy and Social Indicators (http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/venezuela-2009-02.pdf)

Also, he's not Uribe.

[bailey_187]

Hah, you believe that?

What has Chávez managed in the last ten years? Have the poor got richer and the rich poorer?

Well, yes.

He has increaed the poorest 52% of Venezuelans incomes by 138%
Poverty has dropped from approximately 40% down to approximately 30% (with an increase to 50% in 2002 due to the oil strikes)



What concrete changes can supporters point to, and say "if Chávez isn't in power, this will be rolled back", or "without Chávez, this couldn't have happened"?

Erm...the how about the medical clinics in the poor shanty towns? The community schools and colleges? Teaching one million poor Venezuelans how to read and write?



People who say that Chávez are essential to the "socialist revolution" are falling into two traps.

The first, is the "great men of history" trap, that says that individuals, "great men" (rarely women) make history.

An inspirational figure head is needed.



The second is that reformism actually works. If it did work, we would have seen more than the pitiful changes made to Venezuelan society that have been made. We would see more workers in control of the means of production, we would see less government, less controls of social life, less rich bastards etc. etc.

The belief that government can bring about positive long term change is as deluded as the belief that god can. (I don't need to add that markets don't work either, but in other forums I sometimes think I should.)

blahblahblah

Chavez has greatly helped the poor

I suppose he should just give up, sign up to revleft and wait for the proletariat revolution instead though?

(first attempt at multiquoting, hope it works)

[Pogue]

Hah, you believe that?

What has Chávez managed in the last ten years? Have the poor got richer and the rich poorer?

What concrete changes can supporters point to, and say "if Chávez isn't in power, this will be rolled back", or "without Chávez, this couldn't have happened"?

People who say that Chávez are essential to the "socialist revolution" are falling into two traps.

The first, is the "great men of history" trap, that says that individuals, "great men" (rarely women) make history.

The second is that reformism actually works. If it did work, we would have seen more than the pitiful changes made to Venezuelan society that have been made. We would see more workers in control of the means of production, we would see less government, less controls of social life, less rich bastards etc. etc.

The belief that government can bring about positive long term change is as deluded as the belief that god can. (I don't need to add that markets don't work either, but in other forums I sometimes think I should.)

Yeh but as heads of bourgeois states go, he's a good one, a very good one.

[jake williams]

Yeh but as heads of bourgeois states go, he's a good one, a very good one.
We shouldn't have any illusions about the fact that he is a reformist and the leader of what is still in many ways a capitalist state. And of course he has his personal faults. But he is getting concrete things done, not just about poverty but about democratization and workers' control, not to mention anti-imperialism, and he is a hell of a lot better than the opposition.

[kiki75]

Reform entails improvement. I keep reading ppl on revleft say how revolution/real change is gonna take forever, but the moment there is progress somewhere, it's not good enough. You know forever starts now, right?

I think if the ppl voted for it, it's okay, since I think Chavez has the people's interests at heart. Of course, he's still a capitalist (I don't see how we could say otherwise), so he won't be there at the end, but the end is a ways away. Let him rock.

[Tzonteyotl]

The people wanted it and so they got it. I still feel weary of Chavez; something just gives me a bad feeling about him. Nonetheless, I do welcome the improvements in literacy and medical attention, all while understanding that Chavez is just one person and that the working people of Venezuela must initiate and maintain these kind of programs themselves regardless of who wins the presidential/political elections.

[eisidisirock]

Yes, For Chavez!

Now, I just want every country to get some kind of socialist leader. Maois or Marxist it doesent mather as long as they kan kick capitalist ass. (Without Atom bombs)

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Barack Obama, president of the United States, will be eligible to run fo reelection after a yes vote from the American proletariat secured him the presidency. Obama is, in my opinion, playing out the role of "dictator of the proletariat." The GOP and its capitalist minions will try to paint Obama as an evil anti-democratic communist, but when there is a majority "yes" vote, it is evident that the people (the proletariat) are behind him. No revolution can succeed without the backing of the people, and had the vote been "McCain" we would have seen another failed attempt at socialist revolution. But this is a new day for socialism, and hopefully in these turbulent economic times, capitalist society will finally meet its demise.

I'm sorry, but people on revleft seem to treat Chavez in the same way that everyone else treats Obama.

Hope! Change! Socialism! W00T!

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

I'm sorry, but people on revleft seem to treat Chavez in the same way that everyone else treats Obama.

Hope! Change! Socialism! W00T!

No, I think most people here support Chavez, with some criticisms, but not in a hero worship cult like way. Anyways, the things that set Chavez apart from Obama have already been mentioned, (namely, actual, material progress) but it's also easy to see that the force behind Chavez is class conscious. The same can't really be said so much for the election of Obama.

[Zurdito]

well the "actual material progress" is quite limited, and plenty of government's throughout history have acheived more without being supported by communists.

The real problem though is that has been no meaningful structural change, just a creaming off of record oil revenues (nothing to dow ith Chavez, rather thanks to international factors) which have allowed Chavez to buy off large parts of the urban poor and build up a power base for himself and the "bolibourgeoisie" - the noveaux riche who emerged under Chavez's policies of promoting a certain amount of redistribution of wealth towards weak sectors of venezuelan capitalism, who nonethless remain structurally dependent.

most seriously though this project of "21st century socialism" has meant subordinating the working class to the bolibourgeoisie via the PSUV in a united project for "national sovereignity". This is the real purpose of Latin American populism, and all the left who support it have ever acheived is to cheer on the working class as it disarms itself, and travels headlong, unprepared into the inevitable economic crisis that without fail ends every single populist project. There are tens of thousands of dead workers in Latin America to prove the inadequacy of this stageist strategy, but parts of the left never seem to learn.

[Yehuda Stern]

So, "not Pinochet" is now the criterion for whether or not to support political leaders?

[Cumannach]

Well I shouldn't really comment without knowing more about the specifics, but I will say this; if Chavez's reforms and the effect of his politics can strengthen class consciousness and provoke the working and poor of Venezuela into heightened activity in a class-antagonistic framework, while also easing their lot with some improvement of the material conditions, and a guarantee of fairly progressive bourgeois freedoms for organizing and propagandizing, and if Chavez is not deliberately acting as a barrier to Venezuelan socialists forming a more miltant vanguard movement which can take advantage of the raised awareness and activity of the masses, then I think he can be conditionally supported against the rabid reactionaries in Venezuela. If he actively undermines and opposes the growth of stronger socialist groups for the sake of his own position then that's another story. I'm not ready to condemn him for being a left reformist until I've seen a good revolutionary movement sabotaged by him. How are the more radical movements developing in Venezuela does anybody know?

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

This is nonsense. Chavez, a self proclaimed socialist with enormous majorities in parliament and a united political party, controlled by his own cadre, has done relatively little. Juan Peron, a fascist if there ever was one, developed the Argentine economy with just as good if not better results than these.

Chavez is a dime a dozen populist with no real vision outside of promoting a native bourgeoisise with heavy state capitalist involvement. There is no significant sector of worker controlled factories, and those that do exist live on the sufference of the cnetral government. Most of the programs come from substancial oil profits, profits which have certainly dipped as of late. And all he has to show for it is a mild increase in income and a mild decrease in poverty! A ten percent decrease in poverty over ten years is pretty weak for a man with such power over the state. Nor does that income indcator impress me much unless its been indexed for inflation. Venezuela, like any petro state has a bad case of dutch disease, and one of the symptoms is high inflation. What is the ten year cumulative number for inflation? Somehow that 138 percent is prolly closer to 50, which is good, but nothing to write home about when the lowest salaries are sooooo low, and oil prices are sooo high.


EDIT: According to CEPR a very PRO Chavez Keynesian left reformist think tank, inflation has remaind steady the last 10 years at 30 fucking percent! This means that over the chavez years we´ve seen a 300 percent inflation rate. Which if my economic knowledge is correct, this means that the cost of living tripled in 10 years.

[BobKKKindle$]

This is a progressive development, not just in the context of the Chavez government, but in general - bourgeois democracy cannot be used to overthrow capitalism, and is ultimately a facade for the class dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, but the proletariat should still have the right to elect the leader of their choice, instead of being subject to bureaucratic limitations that may lead to a more reactionary leader being elected in the future because a progressive leader is unable to stand for re-election. On the subject of Chavez, it's clear that the Chavez government has introduced progressive reforms such as the nationalization of major enterprises and the widespread provision of welfare services that might not otherwise be available under a less radical government or political leader, but at the same time, the Bolivarian movement involves internal contradictions, most importantly between bureaucrats who want the movement to limit itself to incremental reforms and adjustments within the framework of the capitalist economy in order to preserve their privileged position as administrators of the state apparatus, and those who want the movement to become something more radical and take steps to overthrow capitalism on a regional scale. It is clear that the Bolivarian movement is the focus of working-class political activity in Venezuela, and so revolutionaries need to be part of this movement to win the radical elements over to a revolutionary position. Whether the PSUV can be transformed into a revolutionary party through internal struggle, or whether revolutionaries will be forced to make a decisive break with the party and form an independent organization remains to be seen, and the role of Chavez is also ambiguous, but entryism is the right strategy for us to adopt.

[BIG BROTHER]

It is good that the vote of Yes passed.

A no vote, would have been devastating for the working class in Venezuela and would have given the reaction the strength it has been looking for.

Regarding the nature, of Chavez, and Venezuela, some of you guys are half right. Chavez, at this point is representing the interests of the national bourgeoisie, and the working class. It has been those social classes that have put him in power, and Venezuela reflects that, in the sense that the working class has benefited through social programs, and at the same time the national bourgeoisie and even the international working class as a whole has benefited from the fight against imperialism.

Right now Chavez has managed to balance both classes, and the working class could push even more towards socialism, but ultimately there will be a point were Chavez will have to turn his back to one of the social classes.

But as of right now, Chavez represents the wishes of the masses, therefore we must celebrate the yes vote, because it represents a defeat against the reaction.

[Pogue]

well the "actual material progress" is quite limited, and plenty of government's throughout history have acheived more without being supported by communists.

The real problem though is that has been no meaningful structural change, just a creaming off of record oil revenues (nothing to dow ith Chavez, rather thanks to international factors) which have allowed Chavez to buy off large parts of the urban poor and build up a power base for himself and the "bolibourgeoisie" - the noveaux riche who emerged under Chavez's policies of promoting a certain amount of redistribution of wealth towards weak sectors of venezuelan capitalism, who nonethless remain structurally dependent.

most seriously though this project of "21st century socialism" has meant subordinating the working class to the bolibourgeoisie via the PSUV in a united project for "national sovereignity". This is the real purpose of Latin American populism, and all the left who support it have ever acheived is to cheer on the working class as it disarms itself, and travels headlong, unprepared into the inevitable economic crisis that without fail ends every single populist project. There are tens of thousands of dead workers in Latin America to prove the inadequacy of this stageist strategy, but parts of the left never seem to learn.

I fail to see how the the working class under a more left wing leader diverting money into social developement, with (albeit limited) community councils and alot of democracy are any more 'disarmed' or heading headlong into crisis than the working class of countries led by right wingers or dictators. Surely they're better prepared?

[Zurdito]

I fail to see how the the working class under a more left wing leader diverting money into social developement, with (albeit limited) community councils and alot of democracy are any more 'disarmed' or heading headlong into crisis than the working class of countries led by right wingers or dictators. Surely they're better prepared?

Not necessarilly, I don't rely on bourgeois governments to "prepare" the working class for struggle. Part of the logic behind populism is that uniting the working class around a common project with sectors of the bourgeoisie is a better way to disarm the working class than outright attacks which may lead to it seeking independent organisation.

It is true that in some cases, some factions of the bourgeoisie (i.e. weaker sections geared to the internal market) may push for policies which tend to concentrate and strengthen the working class, as peronism did via the "national bourgeoisie's" pursual of its own interests. In such a case, the worst thing communsits could do would be to close ranks behind the section of the bourgeoisie currently strengthening the working class despite itself, and at the same time doing everything possible to use the situation to convince the working class not to organise independently and to fear and hate anyone threatening national unity with talk of "class", because if the "national bourgeoisie" are succesful in doing that, then history shows that the working class will be defeated when the populsit model runs into crisis.

In any case to paint the above scenario in Venezuela would be an exaggeration, as unemployment has remained high, wages have declined as a proportion of GDP since Chavez came to power, and large and imperialist capital have further penetrated the economy, with the only change being that oil revenues have been so high that Chavez has been able to benefit a bolibourgeoisie without having to structurally challenge imperialism or the big bourgeoisie.

Therefore there has not been any real project of bourgeois development or structural changes to a "national capitalism" which may have left the working class qualitatively stronger. All there has been has been a bonanza of clinetilism based on hgih oil prices that have let Hugo play at being a minor regional power broker, and buy off large chunks of disorganised urban poor with miserly scraps from the table, which is not the same as a set of policies which genuinely strengthen the hand of organised labour. In fact Chavez's period has been characterised by draconian restrictions on industrial action, and by flexibilisation of the labour market dressed up as creating "co-operatives" - basically subcontracting which undercuts organised labour.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Could you please elaborate further on the "cooperatives" and subcontracting remark? I know I wrote about this in my programmatic work-in-progress (http://www.revleft.com/vb/pre-cooperative-worker-t88629/index.html?t=88629), but I'd like some criticism if you don't mind.

[Zurdito]

http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.ft-ci.org/article.php3?id_article=613

I hope you can speak Spanish. Otherwise use google translate:



En materia laboral, el gobierno de Chávez lejos de crear empleo genuino, la Misión llamada “Vuelvan Caras” no da solución a este problema fundamental, y lo que vemos es que con la inmensa masa de desempleados se está aplicando la flexibilización laboral en los ministerios, empresas e instituciones del Estado, sin hablar de los fuertes ataques que sufren los trabajadores en la industria privada. El ejemplo más patético es el impulso de las cooperativas por parte del gobierno que, bajo la cobertura de una nueva economía social, se ha transformado realmente en una flexibilización del trabajo. Las cooperativas, que en 1998 no llegaban a 1.000 en todo el país, se multiplicaron por 10 y eran más de 8.000 en el 2003. Luego del paro y para contener la movilización popular, el gobierno las contempló como la panacea y célula económica de la futura sociedad socialista y popular, y éstas han crecido sustancialmente.

Los sectores industriales son los que se han venido beneficiando con el fuerte surgimiento de las cooperativas. Lo que consiguen con ellas es nada menos que abaratar la mano de obra, evadir impuestos y beneficiarse de la inversión estatal en las cooperativas, convertir en pequeños propietarios a la clase obrera profundizando en la conciencia de éstos la ideología del mercantilismo, y el más importante objetivo para la burguesía: dividir a la clase obrera y presionar contra los derechos laborales conquistados por los trabajadores desde 1925. Como bien lo dice el industrial y “nuevo rico bolivariano” Pérez Virgil: “es mejor contratar una cantidad de servicio a través de cooperativas que incrementar su nómina asumiendo el impacto laboral... Lejos de ser una competencia para nosotros puede ser una competencia para las centrales sindicales y para los trabajadores organizados” [38 (http://www.ft-ci.org/article.php3?id_article=613#nb38)]. Pero también en la industria estatal de PDVSA se aprovechan de las cooperativas, así las labores que antes hacían trabajadores permanentes de la empresa, ahora las hacen cooperativas, con lo que la empresa se libra de pagar beneficios, prestaciones, y cualquier responsabilidad con los trabajadores. Un trabajador de PDVSA, gracias al nuevo contrato, puede ganar un millón de bolívares mientras un cooperativista contratado por la estatal no llega a recibir 400 mil bolívares, ni siquiera el sueldo mínimo, y sin ningún derecho y beneficio de los que tienen los petroleros.

[Die Neue Zeit]

After using the translation, I still don't understand: in my link above (feel free to comment there), I commented on further measures directed against subcontracting. The main point about my co-op demand, based on the continued applicability of an equivalent demand raised in the Eisenach program, is the genuine abolition of "free markets."

[Cumannach]

Are you trotskistas saying you fully believe the cooperatives are nothing but a capitalist ploy and that they have no potential?

[el_chavista]

What has Chávez managed in the last ten years?

Not much besides managing not being overthrown by the CIA, helping Cuba avoiding economic collapse, giving a hand to Evo in Bolivia and Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua.

[REDSOX]

Another great victory for the bolivarian revolution aganst the venezuelan bourgeoisie and the imperialists, this is a result that should have every socialist/communist/progressive rejoicing. Now the revolution should continue to move even further to the left and finish this process the only way it can be finished by giving the workers, peasents, students, full power over their country, and by nationailsing the remaining private enterprises such as the 3/4 banking system not in public hands, the 50% of the food and dairy companies not in public hands, the land, the merchant navy, and big manufacturing, pharmacutical, and construction companies as well as the 1% of the bourgeoisies private property. Lets get to it hugo,lets get to it workers and peasents of venezuela.

Hasts la victoria siempre

[Zurdito]

Are you trotskistas saying you fully believe the cooperatives are nothing but a capitalist ploy and that they have no potential?

I am saying they serve a purpose to the Venezuelan bourgeoisie of creating a set of workers who see themselves as small property holders. Many companies in the west do the same by offering shares to their workers.

I am also saying that the Venezuelan bourgeoisie uses top-down created "co-operatives" to undercut organised labour.

The "no-potential" was your words, not mine. All processes of conflict between different sectors of the bourgeoisie offer potential to workers, and Venezuela is no different. Just because a sector of the bourgeoisie follows policies in its own interests which offer potential spaces for workers to take advantage of (i.e. the weakness of the Venezuelan bourgeoisie means that sectors of it need to rest on the mass movement to some extent in their clashes with imperialism), doesn´t mean we should support them.

[el_chavista]

"the weakness of the Venezuelan bourgeoisie means that sectors of it need to rest on the mass movement to some extent in their clashes with imperialism"
Are you suggesting the existence in Venezuela of a sort of National Liberation Front including "national" bourgeoisie?

[Cumannach]

I am saying they serve a purpose to the Venezuelan bourgeoisie of creating a set of workers who see themselves as small property holders. Many companies in the west do the same by offering shares to their workers.

I am also saying that the Venezuelan bourgeoisie uses top-down created "co-operatives" to undercut organised labour.

The "no-potential" was your words, not mine. All processes of conflict between different sectors of the bourgeoisie offer potential to workers, and Venezuela is no different. Just because a sector of the bourgeoisie follows policies in its own interests which offer potential spaces for workers to take advantage of (i.e. the weakness of the Venezuelan bourgeoisie means that sectors of it need to rest on the mass movement to some extent in their clashes with imperialism), doesn´t mean we should support them.

Well the new cooperatives have to compete with the private enterprises and have to repay their start up loan, it's not suprising if they have to work with lower wages at first (don't they also have to pay a contribution to local social programs?). This isn't neccesarily analogous to say, lowering wages by flooding the labour market with poor immigrants. The coop workers could just as well be seen as having the opposite effect, many (all?) being drawn from the domestic industrial reserve army, any dimunition of which raises the price of labour power. They represent a section of wage slaves that have been emancipated through the ownership of their own means of production. And anyway, the profits from the coop enterprises are owned by the workers. This represents a portion of the social surplus value taken away from the Bourgeoisie, a greater and greater portion, as they expand. If the expansion of the coops puts large and strategic sectors of the national economy increasingly under the control a class of collectivists, natural allies to anyone opposing bourgeois ownership of enterprises, how exactly can any socialist oppose them?

"...convertir en pequeños propietarios a la clase obrera profundizando en la conciencia de éstos la ideología del mercantilismo, ...presionar contra los derechos laborales conquistados por los trabajadores ..."

So they're a new class of petty bourgeois that pay themselves below the minumum wage? Not if they see that as a temporary setup. In which case there won't be any ultimate divisionary attack on wage levels.

It just seems to me, that if the co ops continued to expand and constituted a significant portion of the economy and saw their interests were obviously better represented by Chavez and/or some socialists than the reactionary right bourgeoisie, they would comprise a very valuable tool to make use of in a socialist struggle and revolution.

Those are just some viewpoints to consider. What would you disagree with there?

[Niemand]

Are you trotskistas saying you fully believe the cooperatives are nothing but a capitalist ploy and that they have no potential?
Comrade, please, keep comments like these at the door. Using 'trotskyist' or 'stalinist' as an insult serves only to divide our movement further and benefits only the bourgeoisie. Remember, we're all comrades fighting the same fight. We have one enemy, and that is capitalism. But I digress to the topic at hand.

It is of my opinion that the elimination of term limits is a dangerous move. I am not saying that Chavez longs to turn Venezuela in to his own personal fiefdom, but we should be wary of any individual who seeks to stay in power for the rest of their lives.

[Cumannach]

Comrade, please, keep comments like these at the door. Using 'trotskyist' or 'stalinist' as an insult serves only to divide our movement further and benefits only the bourgeoisie. Remember, we're all comrades fighting the same fight. We have one enemy, and that is capitalism. But I digress to the topic at hand.

It is of my opinion that the elimination of term limits is a dangerous move. I am not saying that Chavez longs to turn Venezuela in to his own personal fiefdom, but we should be wary of any individual who seeks to stay in power for the rest of their lives.

I wasn't using it as an insult, it's what they call themselves. How does eliminating term limits correspond to a life-time rule for Chavez? How do you concoct the notion that Chavez wants to stay in power for the rest of his life? He's not doing away with elections.

[dmcauliffe09]

I wasn't using it as an insult, it's what they call themselves. How does eliminating term limits correspond to a life-time rule for Chavez? How do you concoct the notion that Chavez wants to stay in power for the rest of his life? He's not doing away with elections.
To be fair, you did kind of use it in a pejorative way.

But I'm just playing Devil's Advocate, and I agree with you.

[dmcauliffe09]

Well I shouldn't really comment without knowing more about the specifics, but I will say this; if Chavez's reforms and the effect of his politics can strengthen class consciousness and provoke the working and poor of Venezuela into heightened activity in a class-antagonistic framework, while also easing their lot with some improvement of the material conditions, and a guarantee of fairly progressive bourgeois freedoms for organizing and propagandizing, and if Chavez is not deliberately acting as a barrier to Venezuelan socialists forming a more miltant vanguard movement which can take advantage of the raised awareness and activity of the masses, then I think he can be conditionally supported against the rabid reactionaries in Venezuela. If he actively undermines and opposes the growth of stronger socialist groups for the sake of his own position then that's another story. I'm not ready to condemn him for being a left reformist until I've seen a good revolutionary movement sabotaged by him. How are the more radical movements developing in Venezuela does anybody know?
I think leftists are by nature very critical and judgmental, as we should be. Only time will tell if Chavez is indeed good for the proletariat of Venezuela, and, hopefully, if he is, the proletariat in other nations will be inspired to stand up.

[Niemand]

I wasn't using it as an insult, it's what they call themselves. How does eliminating term limits correspond to a life-time rule for Chavez? How do you concoct the notion that Chavez wants to stay in power for the rest of his life? He's not doing away with elections.
How can you possibly call fellow socialists "they" and still think yourself to be in line with revolutionary theory? You're creating unnecessary sectarianism and dividing us even further. Drop the shit, we're all comrades here, so get used to it. Sure, some of us have slight differences in theory, that doesn't automatically make them reactionary or counterrevolutionary. You fucking people are way too dogmatic.

As for the danger of Chavez, it is quite obvious that when term limits are eliminated, the door is opened to oppression. I am not saying that Chavez is undemocratic, but I am saying that power corrupts and that someone that comes after him might just be undemocratic. This move is very egoistic and should be frowned upon. The Revolution doesn't depend upon one man alone. :rolleyes:

[Cumannach]

How can you possibly call fellow socialists "they"

:confused: It's a fairly common pronoun.

You know, you might remember what you said about sectarianism when thinking about the 'Bolivarian socialists'. For socialists, at this moment, at this stage, an alliance should clearly be made with the Chavistas and a balance struck between defending them against the capitalist right and pulling them further towards the revolutionary left to the extent that the material conditions allow.

The talk about term limits is nonsense. If the venezuelans want Chavez out, they'll neglect to vote him back in during the next democratic elections, all of which Chavez contested fairly. If Chavez intended to stay in power for life regardless of the desire of the people he wouldn't have bothered asking them to sanction his running in the next election, and recieved their approval.

[Niemand]

:confused: It's a fairly common pronoun.
Apparently you don't understand unity. Whatever, it's evidently of no use to spell it out for you.


You know, you might remember what you said about sectarianism when thinking about the 'Bolivarian socialists'. For socialists, at this moment, at this stage, an alliance should clearly be made with the Chavistas and a balance struck between defending them against the capitalist right and pulling them further towards the revolutionary left to the extent that the material conditions allow.
I never said that we shouldn't be in solidarity with the Chavistas, but we need to be wary about idolisation.


The talk about term limits is nonsense. If the venezuelans want Chavez out, they'll neglect to vote him back in during the next democratic elections, all of which Chavez contested fairly. If Chavez intended to stay in power for life regardless of the desire of the people he wouldn't have bothered asking them to sanction his running in the next election, and recieved their approval.
Your lack of vision is amazing. Haven't you ever considered that somebody might come along and, crazy idea here, lie to the people? Careerism exists and is a problem in any state apparatus. Don't tell me there's no possibility of some charismatic, but power crazed, politician coming along in the future and dismantling the revolution because of Chavez's amendment.

Think about it, how can any real change be made if we allow the office of a single executive to control everything? What happened to workers' councils (you know, those things they called Soviets over in Russia back in the 1900s), and direct democracy? How can every worker learn to be a leader if the office of executive is so powerful?

[Crux]

As for the danger of Chavez, it is quite obvious that when term limits are eliminated, the door is opened to oppression. I am not saying that Chavez is undemocratic, but I am saying that power corrupts and that someone that comes after him might just be undemocratic. This move is very egoistic and should be frowned upon. The Revolution doesn't depend upon one man alone. :rolleyes:
Certainly, it is not as if PSUV does not include beaurucratic, oppurtunist and reformist elements, particulary at the top. But joining in with the bourguise media choir saying that unlimited terms is "dictatorial" is nothing but counterproductive, under these current circumstances I think it is a progressive move. What is needed, to safeguard against the bearucracy and bourguise, is that the workingtclass, through the coooperatives, through the bolivarian circles themself rise to power and arm themself. This is the only safeguard, not whetever there are limited or unlimited terms.

[Zurdito]

"the weakness of the Venezuelan bourgeoisie means that sectors of it need to rest on the mass movement to some extent in their clashes with imperialism"
Are you suggesting the existence in Venezuela of a sort of National Liberation Front including "national" bourgeoisie?

No, I think that Chavez regime is a "bonapartism sui generis", as Trotsky defined Cardenas, which rests on the weaker capitalists, lower ranks of the offier corps, and union bureaucrats, with a cerain appeal to the mass movement made possible by the redistribution of some oil revenue (ground rent) to the internal market.

This makes it a top-down, bourgeois-nationalsit phenomenon, which is different from a popular front (i.e. MAS in Bolivia), which came about to contain a pre-revolutionary situation.


Well the new cooperatives have to compete with the private enterprises and have to repay their start up loan, it's not suprising if they have to work with lower wages at first (don't they also have to pay a contribution to local social programs?). This isn't neccesarily analogous to say, lowering wages by flooding the labour market with poor immigrants. The coop workers could just as well be seen as having the opposite effect, many (all?) being drawn from the domestic industrial reserve army, any dimunition of which raises the price of labour power. They represent a section of wage slaves that have been emancipated through the ownership of their own means of production. And anyway, the profits from the coop enterprises are owned by the workers. This represents a portion of the social surplus value taken away from the Bourgeoisie, a greater and greater portion, as they expand. If the expansion of the coops puts large and strategic sectors of the national economy increasingly under the control a class of collectivists, natural allies to anyone opposing bourgeois ownership of enterprises, how exactly can any socialist oppose them?

"...convertir en pequeños propietarios a la clase obrera profundizando en la conciencia de éstos la ideología del mercantilismo, ...presionar contra los derechos laborales conquistados por los trabajadores ..."

So they're a new class of petty bourgeois that pay themselves below the minumum wage? Not if they see that as a temporary setup. In which case there won't be any ultimate divisionary attack on wage levels.

It just seems to me, that if the co ops continued to expand and constituted a significant portion of the economy and saw their interests were obviously better represented by Chavez and/or some socialists than the reactionary right bourgeoisie, they would comprise a very valuable tool to make use of in a socialist struggle and revolution.

Those are just some viewpoints to consider. What would you disagree with there?

I disagree that the way to socialism is for co-operatives to outcompete the large capitalists in the market, and I don't think in Venezuela this is on the cards, or anywhere, as we are in an era of monopoly capitalism. I think proposing such a thing though means arguing that socialism can be created without expropriating the bourgeoisie, who under Chavez have retained control of all key areas of the economy. So I don't think the conditions exist for them to be competed out of existence by some low-paid co-operatives dependent on cheap state credit which is only possible due to the high rent the Venezuelan state has enjoyed in the past few years of rising oil prices, which are now crashing through the floor.

To be able to maintain its current reformism via a global recession the Chavez regime would have needed to make structural changes to the economy in the past 10 years which it didn't make, in fact it further invited imperialist capital into the process of oil extraction and deepened its economic stakes in PDVSA. So how now it is going to maintain cheap credit to co-operatives without making that credit serve a profitable end for those who control the key sectors of the economy on which the state is dependent, I don't know.

Your point about "raising the price of labour": reformist regimes int he past have followed polices which did this, and I think it was wrong to give them political support. I don't see that this is happening to great extent in Venezuela, the article I linked to shows quite a lot of evidence of remaining high unemployment, of inflation hitting low wages disproportionately hard, and shows that the proportion of GDP represented by wages - the relative wage - has fallen under Chavez.

If you go to the thread "Chavez y los trotsksitas" in the "Español" forum, on page 1 of the forum, on page 2 or 3 of the thread you can see where I put forward much more of a synthesis of quotes about this.

[Josef Balin]

Apparently you don't understand unity. Whatever, it's evidently of no use to spell it out for you.


I never said that we shouldn't be in solidarity with the Chavistas, but we need to be wary about idolisation.


Your lack of vision is amazing. Haven't you ever considered that somebody might come along and, crazy idea here, lie to the people? Careerism exists and is a problem in any state apparatus. Don't tell me there's no possibility of some charismatic, but power crazed, politician coming along in the future and dismantling the revolution because of Chavez's amendment.

Think about it, how can any real change be made if we allow the office of a single executive to control everything? What happened to workers' councils (you know, those things they called Soviets over in Russia back in the 1900s), and direct democracy? How can every worker learn to be a leader if the office of executive is so powerful?
The office of executive didn't get any more powerful, though.


Apparently you don't understand unity. Whatever, it's evidently of no use to spell it out for you.
No, the proper pronoun to use in that situation was "they". Not "we", "they". He was talking about a group he doesn't belong to (whatever his ideological current is, he disagrees with the rest of ideological currents in the leftist movement, as I and you do). He was talking about a belief he did not have, and you made an emotional appeal to him. Way to win an argument.

[Cumannach]

I disagree that the way to socialism is for co-operatives to outcompete the large capitalists in the market, and I don't think in Venezuela this is on the cards, or anywhere, as we are in an era of monopoly capitalism. I think proposing such a thing though means arguing that socialism can be created without expropriating the bourgeoisie, who under Chavez have retained control of all key areas of the economy. So I don't think the conditions exist for them to be competed out of existence by some low-paid co-operatives dependent on cheap state credit which is only possible due to the high rent the Venezuelan state has enjoyed in the past few years of rising oil prices, which are now crashing through the floor.


I wasn't suggesting the co ops will gradually outcompete the capitalists and peacefully phase them out of existence that way, softly introducing socialism in full. I said the existence of a large co op sector of the economy may be a favourable material condition as regards a socialist revolution.

'el chavista' raised an interesting point in that thread you mentioned: Does Chavez stop socialists from doing their work? Surely the conditions under Chavez are immeasurably more favourable for developing a revolutionary movement than they have been before him or are likely to be without him. Why can't the socialists organize a movement with the twin platforms of supporting Chavez against the reactionaries and moving towards revolution?

Leaving that aside; In Venezuela, revolutionary socialists have up to this point failed to gain the support of a large section of the venezuelan working class. This will change, and the socialists will be hard at work changing it. In the interim, if some event presents itself, which threatens the hold on power of the chavistas, and the grabbing of state power by reactionary rightists, what should the socialists do in this situation? Should they use what small influence they have to strengthen Chavez, in this immediate contest, or to weaken him? Bear in mind, that a socialist revolution is not an option at this point, since the masses have no intention of it (because the socialists have not yet built up a sufficient revolutionary mass movement), and that can't be changed in a matter of a few days.

Well, to weaken chavez would make the assumption to power of the rightist reactionaries more likely, the conditions that would prevail under their rule would be far less favourable to the task of buidling a strong revolutionary socialist movement among the masses and thus the class struggle would be objectively set back.

The only way weakening Chavez at a critical point might be the right thing to do, even though there was, a priori, no question of socialist revolution, is if a socialist movement can be created in a matter of hours or days and brought to full fruition with a seizing of state power by an organized working class.

But this is obviously impossible.

No one is advocating 'putting off the revolution for many years', or put off the revolution for any amount of time, but rather build the revolutionary movement which may blossom in a few months or a couple of years if the conditions allow, at the same time prevent the taking of state power by a US backed gang of right wing capitalists.

I'd be interested to know what the line was of the venezuelan trotskyists during the attempted coup against chavez a couple of years ago?

[Glenn Beck]

it is quite obvious that when term limits are eliminated, the door is opened to oppression.

No, not really, it's not particularly obvious. Is the door "closed" to oppression in countries WITH term limits? Just because we have term limits in the great old U.S. of A. doesn't make them in any way democratic or "bulwarks against tyranny" or whatever liberal BS.

[Zurdito]

I wasn't suggesting the co ops will gradually outcompete the capitalists and peacefully phase them out of existence that way, softly introducing socialism in full. I said the existence of a large co op sector of the economy may be a favourable material condition as regards a socialist revolution.

Ok but you are being abstract about a real process. The article I linked to argues that in reality the Chavez government is using co-operatives to undercut organised labour, i.e. do jobs that the needs of capital accumulation in Venezuela would create anyway, but do them cheaper than unionised workers. Ideologically by making workers feel like small property-holders, this is also a process of selling workers their own exploitation and undermining solidarity, to weaken the organised working class.


'el chavista' raised an interesting point in that thread you mentioned: Does Chavez stop socialists from doing their work? Surely the conditions under Chavez are immeasurably more favourable for developing a revolutionary movement than they have been before him or are likely to be without him. Why can't the socialists organize a movement with the twin platforms of supporting Chavez against the reactionaries and moving towards revolution?

The conditions for developing a revolutionary movement can be favourable in many countries for many reasons. I would say the conditions for developing a revolutionary movement in France are quite good today and may well be better than in Venezuela (I can't say) but that doesn't mean supporting Sarkozy.

I think I have been pretty clear in the argument and I think Fraccion Trotskista's propaganda is clear. High oil prices have strengthened the hand of the Venezuelan bourgeoisie and led to traditionally weaker sectors being able to rise to power by redistributing a certain amount of wealth to the internal market, which implies a certain margin for reconcentration and recompsoition of the working class (which has been happening on a global level over the past 5 years or so anyway especially in countries enjoying export booms) and allows for a cross-class alliance with them which subordinates them.

Chavez's bourgeois nationalism is exactly that and by tying the working class to alliances with sections of the "national" bourgeoisie it weakens it and lays the foundations for future outright defeats when the material conditions for Chavez's populism disappear and either he or the classic right-wing begin the outright attacks.


Leaving that aside; In Venezuela, revolutionary socialists have up to this point failed to gain the support of a large section of the venezuelan working class. This will change, and the socialists will be hard at work changing it.

This shows again that you are vieiwng the whole situation too mechanically. This may well not change, there is not some "objective process" that Venezuela is passing through on the way to revolution, chavismo being a necessarry bridge. Communists in Venezuela will only win the support of the mass of the class through years of hard ideological struggle, beginning with a programme of class independence to unite the small but significant sectors who have broken or are breaking with chavismo.



In the interim, if some event presents itself, which threatens the hold on power of the chavistas, and the grabbing of state power by reactionary rightists, what should the socialists do in this situation? Should they use what small influence they have to strengthen Chavez, in this immediate contest, or to weaken him? Bear in mind, that a socialist revolution is not an option at this point, since the masses have no intention of it (because the socialists have not yet built up a sufficient revolutionary mass movement), and that can't be changed in a matter of a few days.


We should use our influence to support the sectors coming into conflict with chavismo and to win them to programme of class independence. Yes this means "weakening Chavez", but weakening him by stregthening the working class, which is not what the right wants.


No one is advocating 'putting off the revolution for many years', or put off the revolution for any amount of time, but rather build the revolutionary movement which may blossom in a few months or a couple of years if the conditions allow, at the same time prevent the taking of state power by a US backed gang of right wing capitalists. I'd be interested to know what the line was of the venezuelan trotskyists during the attempted coup against chavez a couple of years ago?

It depends what you mean by venezuelan trotskyists". Marea Socialist (UIT-CI) had their own line, as did IMT and others too small to worry about.

What I am interested in is Fraccion Trotskista, authors of the article I linked to, who supported the mass mobilisation to defeat the coup (in 2002, 7 years ago). Obviously we defend the democratic gains of workers, the urban poor, the peasantry and the middle classes in Venezuela, to elect their own government. The defeat of the coup was therefore a democratic victory. But only that.

However we also have always argued that only the working class, leading the masses, can defeat the right, and that as long as these remain with the bounds set by Chavez, the UNT and the PSUV, the right will remain protected, retain its hold on economic power and control of the repressive state apparatus, and that when the economic conditions of Chavez's populism end (as is happening right now), they will either come to power by a coup or elections, or will implement their policies through him.

The "national" bourgeosie of Venezuela is completely dependent on imperialism, and mostly on the US specifically, it has realised no structural economic changes in 10 years of populism, and retains most of the population in misery as part of the neccessarry conditions for its capital accumulation. It cannot take on imperialism, make Venezuela "independent", or structurally change the Venezuelan economy, even within capitalist limitations: in other words it cannot defeat the oligarchy, US imperailism, or the right. Workers have no interest at all in an alliance with any sector of the bourgeoisie, and any defeat of the right will be because of their own struggles and not because of the parasitical leadership which seeks to channel these struggles for itself and will lead them to defeat int he near future if not overcome.

I can give you the tragic and bloody examples of the Popular Front in Chile, Peronism in Argentina, the PRI in Mexico especially under Cardenas, etc., for historical precedent of this.

[Cumannach]

Ok but you are being abstract about a real process. The article I linked to argues that in reality the Chavez government is using co-operatives to undercut organised labour, i.e. do jobs that the needs of capital accumulation in Venezuela would create anyway, but do them cheaper than unionised workers. Ideologically by making workers feel like small property-holders, this is also a process of selling workers their own exploitation and undermining solidarity, to weaken the organised working class.


Well, they will only be able to undercut labour prices in the long run if they continue to run a small profit that only allows them to distribute a low wage. If the co-ops can improve their production and manage to compete with the private enterprises at the same level (and if they can't, well, that doesn't say much for worker control) they will be able to increase their wages to the current standard level and beyond, thereby attracting more workers out of the private bourgeois production sector. They could also benefit from preferential treatment and markets from the Chavista State- in fact, isn't this already happening? .I can't comrehend how you think co-ops imbue workers with a private property mentality. Even Trostsky didn't believe this did he, when arguing for the immediate collectivization of agriculture, even before Stalin and Bukharin considered it feasible? The collectivized farm model was as much of a co-op as it was a cell of a fully socialized agriculture. And the co op class of workers could only ally themselves with a socialist movement, since the bourgeoisie are utterly opposed to their very existence. This means they constitute a valuable ally in a revolutionary situation.

If the co-ops expanded in size and paid average or higher than average industrial wages, would you then change your position on them?




The conditions for developing a revolutionary movement can be favourable in many countries for many reasons. I would say the conditions for developing a revolutionary movement in France are quite good today and may well be better than in Venezuela (I can't say) but that doesn't mean supporting Sarkozy.


Sarkozy is not responsible for the relatively favourable conditions in France, and he's working to worsen them. Chavez has in large part brought about the current favourable conditions in Venezuela and in my opinion, appears to be bettering them still.




This shows again that you are vieiwng the whole situation too mechanically. This may well not change, there is not some "objective process" that Venezuela is passing through on the way to revolution, chavismo being a necessarry bridge. Communists in Venezuela will only win the support of the mass of the class through years of hard ideological struggle, beginning with a programme of class independence to unite the small but significant sectors who have broken or are breaking with chavismo.


I would simply say, if there's no significant mass movement behind opposition to Chavez, it's nothing but objectively a support for the rightists who do have significant power backing them.