More nationalisation in Venezuela

[REDSOX]

Venezuela president Hugo chavez announced the government will take over the hot briquette iron industry and other metal companies. Hugo chavez during a meeting with union workers from companies controlled by the state owned CVG conglomerate said the government will seize companies including matesi, tavsa, orinocco iron, comsigua and cermics carobobo. Chavez said these industries will be nationlised to create a single industrial complex chavez said in comments on State television. He said there is "nothing to discuss they should have been done long ago". The companies will be brought under the same management and included in plans to build an industrial complex to refine and process raw materials into finished products in a biod to reduce expensive imports chavez said.
Chavez also named Venprecar as a company which will be nationalised as well. Theses nationalisations follow on from the recent state takeovers of gas plants, machine tooling, shipyards, tug boats, motor boats cranes fuel injection systems which were announced recently.

Viva Chavez
Viva socialismo

[teenagebricks]

He's really been stepping up his game recently, Venezuela is going places.

[Q]

A single management, ey? Are these elected by or accountable to the workers? How about workers' control and management on the floor?

I have strong doubts about Chavez' attempts to introduce socialism from above, as it doesn't emancipate the masses. This can only be done by the masses themselves. Chavez can play a useful part here, but that includes more then a mere state decree.

[REDSOX]

Workers control in venezuela is a dream at the moment. The working class as a whole does not have the political consciousness necessary to do what you would like. Some workers are politically advanced such as the workers at the worker control factory at INVEVAL. Others however are not convinced that socialism is the way forward, in other words they still have illusions in capitalism. Most of the trade unions are a joke in venezuela with their leaders squabbling with each other and trying to hold on to their privileges. There does not exist a working class leadership or force to drive the revolution to socialism therefore Hugo chavez will have to do it step by step until the fucking trade unions in venezuela get their act together.

[Ismail]

"...neither the conversion into joint stock companies nor into state property deprives the productive forces of their character as capital. The modern state is only the organisation with which bourgeois society provides itself in order to maintain the general external conditions of the capitalist mode of production against encroachments either by the workers or by individual capitalists... The more productive forces it takes over as its property, the more it becomes the real collective body of all the capitalists, the more citizens it exploits. The workers remain wage-earners, proletarians. The capitalist relationship is not abolished; it is rather pushed to an extreme." (Engels: Anti-Duhring, p. 307)

Engels said: "Capitalist production by Joint Stock companies is no longer private production, but production in the joint account of many. Not only private production but also lack of planning disappear when we proceed from joint stock companies to trusts which control and monopolise whole branches of industry". Chen Po-ta, one of the leaders of the cultural revolution in China, wrote: "...there is nothing strange in certain forms of public ownership being tolerated in a particular society which is governed by an exploiting class, so long as they do not harm, and may even help the fundamental interests of that exploiting class... In capitalist society a joint stock company may be considered a kind of capitalist form of 'public ownership' and some workers may even hold shares in it". ('Yugoslav Revisionism', Peking Review, No. 16, 1958).

Without planning, modern capitalism would very quickly be wrecked by its crisis. It cannot do without planning. But the planning does not abolish the crisis. It only modifies it in such a way that the system can overcome it. Whereas a hundred years ago the capitalist system was healthy enough to let the crisis be overcome by the blind action of economic forces, by the slump which was allowed to follow its own course, today the strength of the working class is such that the capitalists dare not allow the crisis to follow its own course. Planning has therefore become a necessary part of capitalism and its crisis. Professor Liebermann, a Soviet revisionist economist, tells us through the Morning Star that commodity production as the general form of production is socialist because it is 'planned commodity production'. However we are not so ignorant as not to be able to see that at the present stage in the class struggle, unplanned commodity production is becoming virtually impossible for the bourgeois system.http://www.mltranslations.org/Ireland/ico.htm

So yeah, nationalism ≠ socialism.

[REDSOX]

Hugo chavez also said that these companies should be "under workers control" which i agree with, its just a question of how to do it and whether the workers are ready for it, judging by the workers reaction to these nationalisations they may well be but others in venezuela are not ready. The best way to radicalise workers is either through political education or struggle.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

I applaud this move.

[Ismail]

Hugo chavez also said that these companies should be "under workers control" which i agree with, its just a question of how to do it and whether the workers are ready for it, judging by the workers reaction to these nationalisations they may well be but others in venezuela are not ready. The best way to radicalise workers is either through political education or struggle.Words mean nothing. Venezuela has not had a revolution and as such whatever "worker's control" there is or is planned can only be of a progressive but not socialist character at best (and will inevitably degenerate), since the ending of capitalism requires a revolution to abolish the power of the bourgeoisie. The Swedish social-democrats also called for "worker's control" in the 1980's while harassing communists and anarchists.

[REDSOX]

Ismail you are totally wrong. What is happening in venezuela is a revolution, and a revolution is a process which does not happen overnight. You erroneously assume that because socialism has not yet been established in venezuela then it will never happen. You seem to think that revolutions should happen overnight or very quickly but that is not always the case, revolutions take many forms depending on the objective conditions in every country. In venezuela the revolution is a slow motion revolution happening in a kind of ratchet effect, in other words becomming more radical as time goes on. Eventually hopefully sooner rather than later venezuela will arrive at a socialist society with workers control not of the swedish type but of a revolutionary socialist type.

[Q]

You erroneously assume that because socialism has not yet been established in venezuela then it will never happen.
Oh, I'm sure the socialist revolution will happen in Venezuela one day. It just won't be Chavez' doing.

I never thought I'd say this (:p) but Ismail is spot on.

[REDSOX]

It will be chavez and the workers and the peasants and the students and the barrio movements doing mate. Let me let you into a secret there all on the same side with the same goal ie socialism:)

[redguard2009]

Weak.

There are a few government-owned companies in Canada. They're referred to as "Crown Corporations". Does anybody have any say in them? Not one bit. In the end, it all boils down to a single man and his cabinet of government officials dictating the terms of society, of which our only say is determining which group out of a small selection does it.

[Il Medico]

Good for Comrade Chavez! Don't really think this will make Venezuela socialist, maybe social democrat.

[Ismail]

Good for Comrade Chavez! Don't really think this will make Venezuela socialist, maybe social democrat.Some "comrade" then. The social-democrats have by and large abandoned nationalization, such as the Socialist Party of Chile (which is currently in power there) whose leader is a huge admirer of neo-liberalism. In fact, the social-democrats in Venezuela are anti-Chavez.


It will be chavez and the workers and the peasants and the students and the barrio movements doing mate. Let me let you into a secret there all on the same side with the same goal ie socialismChavez is progressive and sometimes quotes Marxists to get brownie points with them, but his government is still reformist and populist rather than actually socialist. Give me examples of actual socialist things he's done.

[teenagebricks]

I think people expect too much from Chávez. In most Latin American countries, a socialist revolution isn't really possible because it would attract American attention, this is especially true for Venezuela, they have huge oil reserves, and around half of what they drill gets exported to the United States. Revolution in Venezuela would mean American intervention, and ultimately that would be a step backwards for socialism. Chávez and PSUV are about as revolutionary as Venezuela can possibly get at the moment, but I personally have no doubt that if the opportunity arises Chávez will bring about more radical change, for that reason I support him completely.

[ZeroNowhere]

Revolution in Venezuela would mean American intervention, and ultimately that would be a step backwards for socialism.Wait, how does that work? It's a step back for socialism to have capitalism without a socialist revolution taking place as opposed to having capitalism after a revolution is put down?

[Niccolò Rossi]

I think people expect too much from Chávez.

Only those who don't understand the nature and role of the bourgeois state.


In most Latin American countries, a socialist revolution isn't really possible because it would attract American attention

Where on earth do you think a proletarian revolution would not provoke aggression from all and any of the world bourgeoisie? This fact does not put revolution off the agenda. On the contrary it implies the necessity of the revolution to generalise itself internationally or else suffer inevitable defeat whether it be by external, crushing military defeat or the agony of isolation and internal asphyxiation.


Chávez and PSUV are about as revolutionary as Venezuela can possibly get at the moment

That is, if one forgets the working class in favour of populist bourgeois-military forces as the revolutionary subject.


I personally have no doubt that if the opportunity arises Chávez will bring about more radical change, for that reason I support him completely.

And for that reason you side with the ruling class against the proletariat.

[Ismail]

Revolution in Venezuela would mean American intervention, and ultimately that would be a step backwards for socialism.Much in the same way colonial revolts getting put down meant a "step back" for anti-colonialism? Much in the same way the massacres of workers in the Russian Empire meant a "step back" for socialism?

If the US were to intervene in a truly socialist Venezuela, not only would its influence in Venezuela be totally discredited and abhorred, but its influence in Latin America would inspire more socialists than ever. Reformism only goes so far until it begins to erode bourgeois power, in which case the bourgeoisie cannot help but resort to terror against the proletariat. This brings about is downfall.

[teenagebricks]

Wait, how does that work? It's a step back for socialism to have capitalism without a socialist revolution taking place as opposed to having capitalism after a revolution is put down?
No, having your country blacklisted like Cuba was is a step back, not for socialism, just for human beings in general.

Where on earth do you think a proletarian revolution would not provoke aggression from all and any of the world bourgeoisie? This fact does not put revolution off the agenda. On the contrary it implies the necessity of the revolution to generalise itself internationally or else suffer inevitable defeat whether it be by external, crushing military defeat or the agony of isolation and internal asphyxiation.
I'm not suggesting that Venezuela should forget about revolution completely, but I don't think that if it happened tomorrow it would all go horribly wrong and they might end up stuck with someone much worse than Hugo Chávez.

And for that reason you side with the ruling class against the proletariat.
No, I don't side with anyone except those who I believe are doing right by their people. At the moment Chávez is doing more good than harm, so class doesn't even come into it.

The thing is, people dislike PSUV for the sole reason that they are reformist, while forgetting that while they may not be revolutionary, they promote many of the same causes that we do. So they are not doing anything wrong, but in some peoples' opinions they are not doing enough right, apparently you must either be completely revolutionary or completely useless.

[Ismail]

No, having your country blacklisted like Cuba was is a step back, not for socialism, just for human beings in general.What was the alternative? Fidel Castro keeps his "Oh no, I'm not a communist nor capitalist, all is fine..." line that he had in 1959 and extend it for 50+ years? It was Fidel's fault for moving to the Soviets and basing the Cuban economy around sugar exports and such (for the Soviet's needs) when Che advised against it. Cuba would have been better off today if it weren't for that. Otherwise, while the US embargo is indeed bad, the alternative is better relations with the US (which is occurring anyway) and the degeneration of progress (at a good risk of occurring due to US demands for "liberalization").

[Stranger Than Paradise]

No, I don't side with anyone except those who I believe are doing right by their people. At the moment Chávez is doing more good than harm, so class doesn't even come into it.

Isn't class the whole basis of any revolutionaries ideals? Our support for one over the other? And if someone is not working in the direct interest of the advancement of the emancipation of the proletariat then he is not someone we should support.



The thing is, people dislike PSUV for the sole reason that they are reformist, while forgetting that while they may not be revolutionary, they promote many of the same causes that we do. So they are not doing anything wrong, but in some peoples' opinions they are not doing enough right, apparently you must either be completely revolutionary or completely useless.

that's the idea

[Zurdito]

One of the companies nationalized is the Argentine Techint, the ex-owners of SIDOR. Some people may find it interesting that the Argentinian CGT came out against the nationalization, with national leader and teamsters union boss Hugo Moyano saying "I don't agree with nationalizing companies, this isn't what Peron taught us". How's that for chauvinism?

Not that Chavez is going to in any way use these nationalizations for the benefit of the masses, rather only for the startegic interests of the boli-bourgeoisie, but that is a different issue. This is the same President who recently stated about workers at stae companies "if they try to strike, they are getting involved with me personally, just wait and see what I do", and promised to send in the army and use intelligence services against strike leaders. He has also been proposing that it should be a criminal offence punishable by 10 years prison to interfere with the working of any state company.

btw I do not think the PSUV is exactly "reformist", rather it is bourgeois nationalist and says that workers task is to fight for the interests of national capitalism. This is more backwards than social democracy which accepts class struggle but demands it by only "parliamentary means". Workers who join the PSUV have to reject any idea that the working class can have its own party.

[Die Neue Zeit]

More important is this bank nationalization (finally):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8064644.stm


Venezuela has nationalised its third largest lender, Banco de Venezuela, after agreeing to pay $1.05bn (£660m) to Spanish owner Banco Santander

[REDSOX]

I suppost the bank of venezuela nationalisation is an example of bourgeois nationalism as well then messrs trots:)

[Zurdito]

I suppost the bank of venezuela nationalisation is an example of bourgeois nationalism as well then messrs trots:)

of course not, no bourgeois state would ever nationalize a bank.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Maybe we are moving away from the purpose of the thread, but I think it's worthwhile.


I'm not suggesting that Venezuela should forget about revolution completely, but I don't think that if it happened tomorrow it would all go horribly wrong and they might end up stuck with someone much worse than Hugo Chávez.

How is this different from the line parroted by the bourgeoisie, that communism is either a hopeless utopia at best, or in practice much worse than capitalism.

A message to Venezuelan workers from teenagebricks:
"Workers of Venezuela, yes, Senor Chavez is the representative of Venezuelan capital and ultimately opposed to your own interests as workers. But please, workers of Venezuela, keep in mind that any attempt for you to try and express yourselves actively or to defend your own interests, this will go horribly wrong and you will end up being faced with those much worse than he. Pack up and go home."


No, I don't side with anyone except those who I believe are doing right by their people.

Socialists on the other hand hold a class perspective.


At the moment Chávez is doing more good than harm, so class doesn't even come into it.

Why bother calling yourself a socialist if 'class doesn't even come into it'. This is anti-working class garbage that finds a home too often amongst leftists. (I remember fondly at a leftist conference over the Easter Weekend a few months back a comment I made in response to a talk on Israel's latest offensive in Gaza was responded to with "Why are we talking about class here? What we need relevance")

Also, big thumbs up to Zurdito's 100% correct post which not only addresses the OP but other comments made in this post, including TB's.

EDIT: In reply to Zurdito's second post; Why is it that "no bourgeois state would ever nationalize a bank"? If not, what is happening in Venezuela, has it become something other than a bourgeois state?

[Zurdito]

Niccolo - my second post was just a joke. ;)

[Lynx]

Once more, we have the 'big man' leading his country down a path of his own making. And he we are, on an internet forum, trying to be supportive while being skeptical.

[teenagebricks]

How is this different from the line parroted by the bourgeoisie, that communism is either a hopeless utopia at best, or in practice much worse than capitalism.
You could look at it that way, but the difference is I am simply saying what I think, the bourgeoisie are generally lying to protect their interests. Don't get me wrong, if a revolution came along and proved otherwise then I would be very happy indeed.

Socialists on the other hand hold a class perspective.
Correct, but I personally hold the opinion that socialists should learn to recognise a good situation when they see one. I disagree with the general consensus of the left that a politician can not truly represent the interests of the working class.

Why bother calling yourself a socialist if 'class doesn't even come into it'.
Class doesn't have to come into everything, granted, it is the root of most problems, but I think you have misunderstood what I was saying, all I meant was that judging someone who appears to be working towards a better future based on class can sometimes be counter productive. Yes, Hugo Chávez is a high ranking military man, and yes, he's at the top of the social hierarchy, but aside from this, I don't really see what he's ever done wrong, especially from a socialist standpoint. I think it's unfortunate that many leftists let class take priority over track record, those who may have good intentions are often shunned based on the size of their personal wealth, but many of the greatest revolutionaries came had privileged lives. It's completely understandable that people on the left oppose Hugo Chávez, but for God's sake, oppose him based on his actions, not on how fine his pinstripes are.

[KC]

One of the companies nationalized is the Argentine Techint, the ex-owners of SIDOR. Some people may find it interesting that the Argentinian CGT came out against the nationalization, with national leader and teamsters union boss Hugo Moyano saying "I don't agree with nationalizing companies, this isn't what Peron taught us". How's that for chauvinism?

I followed the Techint nationalization quite closely, but haven't read anything since it's been nationalized. Do you know how these nationalized companies are actually run? I haven't been able to find any information on this, about any nationalized company.



Not that Chavez is going to in any way use these nationalizations for the benefit of the masses, rather only for the startegic interests of the boli-bourgeoisie, but that is a different issue. This is the same President who recently stated about workers at stae companies "if they try to strike, they are getting involved with me personally, just wait and see what I do", and promised to send in the army and use intelligence services against strike leaders.

Link?

[Zurdito]

http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.youtube.com/v/Pdxfxi7jTKM&hl=en&fs=1','310

there is a link to a video of chavez making those remarks, go to 4.34.

[Dimentio]

Nationalisations generally mean that the state owns and operates companies. Socialism is more than ownership, it is management. We cannot have bureaucrats administrating companies without any changes in the overall structure of society.