Hugo Chavez- Even a social democrat?

[Small Geezer]

I would like to be lazy, and just ask outright; 'is there even a proper welfare state in Venezuela?'.

The answer being no, why are leftists cheerleading him?

[n0thing]

Because he's a powerful man and claims he's a socialist. That's all these marxist-leninist retards need to throw themselves at his feet.

[Asoka89]

Regardless of what he is there is a popular movement behind him and real Marxists have to engage and try to influence movements as they are-- not as we want them to be. Yes this does sound like "tailism". I'm not high on Chavez like others

Yes, the people being interviewed are anarchists, but they are very smart and right on the money. I've been to Venezuela and spent some time there and came to similar conclusions. I still support the regime critically against her enemies:

http://thecommune.wordpress.com/2009/02/09/the-revolution-delayed-10-years-of-hugo-chavezs-rule/

[Charles Xavier]

How isn't he a socialist? He is going slow sometimes on various points however Venezuela isn't a monolith, there's more than Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, there's a fanatical Opposition movement.

[Ned Flanders]

Hugo Chavez is a reformist populist, IMHO similar to good old Juan Peron of Argentina, exept the Chavez terminology is a bit more radical than Perons was.

[n0thing]

How isn't he a socialist? He is going slow sometimes on various points however Venezuela isn't a monolith, there's more than Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, there's a fanatical Opposition movement.
He doesn't even meet the standards for state-socialism. The oil in Venezuela is still owned by private multinationals. The workers just get better deals than they used to. Rather, they just get exploited a bit less. Britain under Labour in the 1970's was much more plausibly socialist than Venezuela is today. At least the means of production were by and large, not owned by capitalists.

The bulk of Venezuela's income comes from the private sector.

[Charles Xavier]

He doesn't even meet the standards for state-socialism. The oil in Venezuela is still owned by private multinationals. The workers just get better deals than they used to. Rather, they just get exploited a bit less. Britain under Labour in the 1970's was much more plausibly socialist than Venezuela is today. At least the means of production were by and large, not owned by capitalists.

The bulk of Venezuela's income comes from the private sector.

And Venezuela isn't a monolith, there is still a big opposition which prevent the socialists from implementing such a policy. This is the third world.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRvFzPkFUm0

The labour movement in Venezuela is much weaker in Venezuela than in post war Britain. You are comparing a country with incomes coming from imperialist wars and trade policies who had the financing to implement socialism and a strong trade union movement, a developed economy, when the Soviet Union just emerged as a superpower with a third world country.

Having state power doesn't mean you have an unused bloc of clay where you can make whatever you want. You have to responde to the actual conditions that exist.

[Asoka89]

How isn't he a socialist? He is going slow sometimes on various points however Venezuela isn't a monolith, there's more than Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, there's a fanatical Opposition movement.

I think you should read this http://thecommune.wordpress.com/2009...-chavezs-rule/ . I don't completely disagree with you

[Charles Xavier]

Hugo Chavez is a reformist populist, IMHO similar to good old Juan Peron of Argentina, exept the Chavez terminology is a bit more radical than Perons was.

Not even close he is more of a Juan Velasco.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

This might be relevant:

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/4660


Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez again declared his complete support for the proposal by industrial workers for a new model of production based on workers' control.

This push from Chavez, part of the socialist revolution, aims at transforming Venezuela's basic industry. However, it faces resistance from within the state bureaucracy and the revolutionary movement.

Presenting his government's "Plan Socialist Guayana 2009-2019", Chavez said the state-owned companies in basic industry have to be transformed into "socialist companies".

...

For Chavez, state-owned companies "that continue to remain within the framework of state capitalism" have to be managed by their workers in order to become "socialist".


However, like an old train that begins to rattle loudly as it speeds up, more right-wing sectors within the revolutionary movement also began to tremble.

With each new attack against the political and economic power that the capitalist class still holds in Venezuela - and uses to destabilise the country - the revolution is also forced to confront internal enemies.

[REDSOX]

The Venezuelan state does own its oil. The state oil company is called PDVSA and is 100% owned by the state. There are joint ventures with foreign capital but the law states that PDVSA must have at least 60% of the joint venture and the other partner has the rest. The vast majority of the partners are from other state owned companies around the world. As part of the agreement the foreign oil companies must pay 50% income tax and 33% royalties. So 83% of the profits go to the state who then spend it on schools hospitals housing roads railways for the poor. Ideally of course the state should have 100% of the profits but PDVSA does not have the expertise and the technology to extract the oil so it has to cut a deal with the foreign oil companies. By the way the venezuelan state owns the following

1. OIL AND GAS including transportation marketing and distribution
2. Merchant navy
3. 50% FOOD PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION
4. 25% of banking and insurance
5. Electricity
6. Water
7 Airports and ports
8. 80% of the steel companies
9. 90% of the cement industry
10 National airline
11. Railways
12 30% of the land
13. 10% of manufacturing and enginerring
14. Telephone company
15. Arms industry
16. Caracas metro
17. Marine enginering
18. Shipyards
19. Pharmacutical plants
20. Petrochemicals
21. Construction companies
22. Mining coal gold copper cobalt salt etc
23 TV RADIO 25%
24 Forests parks
25 Tractor production
26. paper and pulp
23. and much more is being built by the state as well in various fields

Yes it is true that the state only owns about 30% to 35 % of the economy and the private sector owns the rest but that is a massive increase from 1999 when chavez took power and reversed neo liberalism and is the highest level of state ownership in the americas excepting cuba. And yes i know there is little or no workers control at the moment although there are some examples in some industries like oil and mining. The point is though comrades is that this is a revolution and a revolution is a process, sometimes like venezuela it is slow and there are contradictions. The outcome of this revolution will depend on objective and subjective factors within venezuela as well as outside it. There is no one model for building a socialist society and some comrades really should know better if they think there is one.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

The reason that many leftists "cheerlead" him is because he's a thorn in the side of the imperialist West and all sorts of Latin American reactionaries, who plotted a coup to destablize Venezuela seven years ago. (The same plotters who illegally overthrew Chavez instantaneously gained immediate diplomatic support in the form of instantaneous recognition from the American government back in 2002.)

The fact that he's raised double digits of Venezuelans above the poverty line in a matter of years - thanks to nationalization and Venezuela's dramatic growth of social programs oriented around el pueblo - is also not meaningless. Nor is his support of Cuba or any other Venezuela-backed movements besieged by Western imperialism.

I'm not sure why one would wait for the perfect hero to come along in order to support a positive change in Latin America's leftism.

[Pogue]

I don't think it matters 'How good' a bourgeois leader the man is, he is still a bourgeois leader and is thus inherently opposed to the interests of the working class and revolution.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

I don't think it matters 'How good' a bourgeois leader the man is, he is still a bourgeois leader and is thus inherently opposed to the interests of the working class and revolution.

Nobody was suggesting Chavez as a replacement for working class revolution. Karl Marx thought of Lincoln as a pretty good "bourgeois" leader during the struggle between the north and the slave-owning south. A reasonable leftist would accept Chavez as a pretty good leftist with power in Latin America without pretending that Chavez is Vladimir Lenin risen up again.

[Asoka89]

Check out that article I linked to. A lot of the state development projects and "cooperatives" aren't what they seem and the mission programs are collapsing. Yes I critically support Chavez in spite of the opposition, but we need to articulate (especially if we are in orgs that work with Venezuela solidarity) what a real revolution is and support the militant parts of the Bolivarian process.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

I don't think it matters 'How good' a bourgeois leader the man is, he is still a bourgeois leader and is thus inherently opposed to the interests of the working class and revolution.

The Bolivarian Revolution is opposed to the interests of the working class? That has to be the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

[Asoka89]

The Bolivarian Revolution is opposed to the interests of the working class? That has to be the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

Go read chapter 1 of Kautsky's "Road to Power"... he's administrating the capitalist state. Also read that interview I posted earlier in the thread. But of course it matters how "good" a bourgeois leader is, because he has helped UNLEASH social forces that can lead to even more substantial change.

http://www.anonym.to/?http://thecommune.wordpress.com/2009/02/09/the-revolution-delayed-10-years-of-hugo-chavezs-rule/ = here is the link comrades

[Revy]

He has turned the police violently against striking workers. (http://www.permanentrevolution.net/entry/2024)

Some "revolution". Yes, he is a reformist and/or social democrat.

[Manzil]

Go read chapter 1 of Kautsky's "Road to Power"... he's administrating the capitalist state.

Well Chavez is just a man. All governments are essentially parties of men, but collectively they represent more, and are far more complex reflections of society, than their individual parts. I think the leftist anti-Chavistas who dismiss the situation in Venezuela on the basis of Chavez personally and his roie are doing as great a disservice to the fighting progressive social movements in Venezuela as the revolutionary socialists who stopped thinking critically the moment he called George Bush the 'devil' at the UN General Assembly.

The fundamentals of capitalism in Venezuela remain fairly healthy, that much I will concede. There is exploitation and oppression as before 1998. Although of course it is a related fact that Venezuelan capitalism itself is unhealthy, dependent on oil exports and therefore a functioning and profitable world market. The attempt to construct a Latin American powerbase in ALBA is evidence the Chavez government is aware of these limitations.

Further, there are obvious reactionary elements within the Venezuelan state. These include the 'usual suspects', that is the consistent enemies of the workers' movement like the regional governments, the police and so fort, but also the expanded and pro-Chavez bureaucracy which has grown up under his administration, and which often seems interested more in the political and economic stability of the Venezuelan state itself (and the personal health, wealth and happiness of the reformist section of its governing classes), than the workers and poor in whose name they are supposed to be governing.

That said, although the regime is seemingly content to 'administer the capitalist state' it has not been administering it in the immediate interests of the big capitalists. Bolivarianism has upset the apple cart. The upper classes do not see the Bolivarian Revolution is essentially in their own long-term interests, providing a more sustainable basis for their own rule. So they have rebelled, attempted to depose his regime in the coup, the oil strike, the recall referendum etc. This divide in the ruling class has opened the government to pressure from the left. By fearing Caesarism, the oligarchs isolated Chavez and forced him to rely on the barrios for support.

I don't know how sincere Chavez's own move to the left during the last decade is. But that doesn't matter. What is important is that the Venezuelan left can wrest important victories from the Bolivarian regime that would have been far more difficult had the traditional parties remained in power - and these victories will hopefully strengthen the position of the workers' camp, and allow it to progressively increase its control of the country and, one day, overcome the limitations inherent in Chavismo.

[Communist]

Chavez is certainly flawed. He could be pushing for far stronger socialist movement and be less into showbiz. His meaningless flamboyance has endeared him to the liberals and elite social democrats (to them, all he really ever had to do was denounce Bush) and he often appears willing to coast by on smarmy self-aggrandizement.
However, he is a step in the right direction and deserves our *critical* support. I believe Chavez to be a socialist, and if he's not as hardline as we'd like, his success could very well lead to a future politico with more focus and socialist determination.

[Pogue]

The Bolivarian Revolution is opposed to the interests of the working class? That has to be the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

It might seem stupid if you are a reformist, yes. I don't think the 'Bolivarian revolution', i.e. populist social democracy, is in the interests of the working class, who need a revolution. I think all bourgeois leaders are in opposition to the interests of the working class.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Go read chapter 1 of Kautsky's "Road to Power"... he's administrating the capitalist state. Also read that interview I posted earlier in the thread. But of course it matters how "good" a bourgeois leader is, because he has helped UNLEASH social forces that can lead to even more substantial change.

http://www.anonym.to/?http://thecommune.wordpress.com/2009/02/09/the-revolution-delayed-10-years-of-hugo-chavezs-rule/ = here is the link comrades

I'm sorry, but I don't base my entire judgement of a situation on one single article written by some anarchists.

I don't see how the fact that he's administering the capitalist state makes his reforms any less beneficial to the working class, however. I don't suspect you'd say that a minimum wage increase by the capitalist state is against the interests of the working class, would you? It's not like attempting to place factories under direct worker control or giving more power to local councils benefit the capitalist class.


He has turned the police violently against striking workers. (http://www.permanentrevolution.net/entry/2024)

Some "revolution". Yes, he is a reformist and/or social democrat.

No, Chavez did not do that:


The alliance between Rangel and union bureaucrats in Guayana is long running.

Officially part of the Chavista camp, Rangel has long been accused of being corrupt and anti-worker. During his term as CVG president before becoming governor in 2004, Rangel built up a corrupt clientalist network with local union and business figures.

He stacked CVG management with business partners and friends.

While on the negotiation commission to resolve the 15-month long dispute at Sidor, Rangel ordered the National Guard to fire on protesting Sidor workers.

Also on the commission was then-labour minister and former FSBT union leader from Guayana, Jose Ramon Rivero, who was similarly accused by Sidor workers of siding with management.

He was also criticised for using his position as labour minister to build the FSBT's bureaucratic powerbase by promoting "parallel unions" along factional lines and splitting the revolutionary union confederation, National Union of Workers (UNT).

In April last year, Chavez disbanded the Sidor negotiation commission and sent his vice president, Ramon Carrizales to resolve the dispute by re-nationalising the steel plant.
It might seem stupid if you are a reformist, yes. I don't think the 'Bolivarian revolution', i.e. populist social democracy, is in the interests of the working class, who need a revolution. I think all bourgeois leaders are in opposition to the interests of the working class.

I'm not so Naive that I'm going to change my view on the situation just because someone threw around the word reformist. I'm not even sure why you bother to post...you have 4000 posts worth of one liners and flimsy rhetoric better suited to a liberal politician or a troll. Yes, there is bureaucracy, and yes, it is getting in the way of progress. The Venezuelan people are very well aware of this, they don't need some condescending anarchist to tell them the difficulties they face.

[Asoka89]

I'm sorry, but I don't base my entire judgement of a situation on one single article written by some anarchists, especially one so

I don't see how the fact that he's administering the capitalist state makes his reforms any less beneficial to the working class, however. I don't suspect you'd say that a minimum wage increase by the capitalist state is against the interests of the working class, would you? It's not like attempting to place factories under direct worker control or giving more power to local councils benefit the capitalist class.


Regardless of what you think of their ideology, the article is written by several anarchists who have lived in Venezuela their whole lives and witnessed the process. Foreign anarchists are nothing like the lifestylists we have in the states, they are genuinely committed to real socialism and their critiques have to be engaged with not dismissed so lightly.

There is a large segment of the bourgeoisie that have benefited from Chavez's crony capitalism.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

There is a large segment of the bourgeoisie that have benefited from Chavez's crony capitalism.

Please elaborate.

[el_chavista]

-I wish I speak English fluently, sorry-


If anyone in the Bolivarian revolution still wants to promote direct democracy ("a transfer of political power to communities") it is Chávez.

There is no anti-workers government policy unless you're talking about the bourgeois legality that endures in almost all the laws (recently Chávez asked the National Assembly to do something about in these 2 years left).

If the Soviet apparatchiki became capitalists, what do you expect from the petty-bourgeois bureaucrats of the Bolivarian government? -I wonder whether the petty bourgeoisie is not the real problem with bureaucratization (instead of "Stalinism".)

[Asoka89]

Please elaborate.

I could go a lot more into depth and strike a bit more nuance, but I'm on my way out the door in a few minutes.

Briefly:


In Venezuela, given the importance of oil revenue to the economy, the state has always subsidised private companies, like a sort of mixed capitalism. The wealthiest bosses who have emerged have always had ties with the state. Within global capitalism, Venezuela has fulfilled the role of cut-price oil producer. With the current transformations, Venezuelan entrepreneurs in traditional sectors like the service sector and manufacturing have been progressively sidelined by entrepreneurs more linked to modern industries like communication, transport and finance. These domestic developments are linked to the evolution of globalised capitalism. The way things are going, it looks like the new Chavista state has installed a new capitalist caste whose role is to defend the central importance of oil to the economy.

The top of the military bureaucracy have always finished their career in the private sector, as landowners or executives. Today their economic role has increased now that army men are in place at all levels of the state apparatus. Chávez has particular reliance on the military bureaucracy, which he has confidence in and which is charged with stepping up efficiency in the management of the economy. It is a well-established bureaucracy which benefits from significant material and financial privileges and good living standards. What’s more, it benefits from total legal impunity.

[el_chavista]

Nothing new in the sun. It was not until the the right wing onslaughts in 2002-2003 when Chávez began to move to the left.

Chávez roll is well described as "positive Bonapartism sui generis" by Trotskyists, and his politics as those of a national defense movement or a national liberation movement by the CPs.

Unless you want anticommunism back in Venezuela, masses do better sticking to Chávez "revolutionary reformism".