Venezuela

[Luisrah]

Before you read all this keep in mind that I'm a young communist.

I have heard from some that Hugo Chávez wants to be a dictator by some idiots. (I'd say that's crap lol) while it seems there is no lack of democracy in there.

I would like to know too if Venezuela is close to socialism? (In Marx's way of thinking)
It seems so, I mean, I saw in a docummentary that workers and simple people could go to a big owner's land that was unused for a long time and take it for themselves to cultivate.
That's a socialist move isn't it?

The actual point of this thread is to make me understand what is a socialist society. Because I've heard from many people that Cuba isn't close to socialism, and from others, I've heard praises to it and Venezuela for being the closest things we have to socialism in the world.

Can someone give me some info on ''the state of things'' in Cuba and Venezuela? I know that the Cuban health (whatever you call it) is one of the best in the world, and heard education there is nearly free, and that doctors recieve less than in capitalist states.

I just need to light in those things.

[h0m0revolutionary]

Venezuelan anarchists don't find him particually revolutionary, democratic or Marxist.

http://libcom.org/library/venezuela-behind-smokescreen

[the last donut of the night]

Venezuela is still capitalist, but Chavez has leaded for some good reform. However, I dislike reformism alone. Also, his use of oil for social projects isn't too reliable on and the dependency on him from the left in the country is too strong. The struggle seems too up-bottom. Not bottom-up.

[el_chavista]

Venezuelan anarchists don't find him particually revolutionary, democratic or Marxist.
I'm afraid the clique from the "El Libertario" newspaper isn't that representative of a real anarchist movement.
Cuba is a socialist country notwithstanding all the problems derived from her isolation, economical backwardness and not totally proletarian leadership. Of course you can argue against this if you happen to be an anti-Leninist or a sectarian Trotskyist.
Venezuela is another story. We have more democracy but less steps towards a real transference of politic power to the people.
However, Chávez is a great ally for all the progressive forces of the Venezuelan society.

[Raúl Duke]

Before you read all this keep in mind that I'm a young communist.

I have heard from some that Hugo Chávez wants to be a dictator by some idiots. (I'd say that's crap lol) while it seems there is no lack of democracy in there.

I would like to know too if Venezuela is close to socialism? (In Marx's way of thinking)
It seems so, I mean, I saw in a docummentary that workers and simple people could go to a big owner's land that was unused for a long time and take it for themselves to cultivate.
That's a socialist move isn't it?

The actual point of this thread is to make me understand what is a socialist society. Because I've heard from many people that Cuba isn't close to socialism, and from others, I've heard praises to it and Venezuela for being the closest things we have to socialism in the world.

Can someone give me some info on ''the state of things'' in Cuba and Venezuela? I know that the Cuban health (whatever you call it) is one of the best in the world, and heard education there is nearly free, and that doctors recieve less than in capitalist states.

I just need to light in those things.

While the news about rising living standards for the masses are all good and progressive...socialism is more then just that.

Socialism entails that the working class are taking some means of power and are reaching or reached a point where one can say that they're in control.

What makes Venezuela's case interesting is that while accurately socialism is not in place Chavez and his policies have a tendency to make it possible a move to that direction (socialism) if the people desired. For example, I've heard of workers councils (although more accurately workers co-ops probably like those in Argentina), neighborhood association, the idea of an armed population floating around (which could either be considered a good or bad thing. Some see it, at least the way Chavez is implementing it, as the "militarization of society"), etc in Venezuela.

In Venezuela, I've heard that the anarchist movement are split between those who are against Chavez (whether to the extant that they will participate with the right-wing opposition I don't know) and those who "recognize and acknowledge" his progressive achievements (although they still see him as "just a reformer").

[ezza_lv]

you can't support Democracy and communism, those are different things... and well yes Cuba has better live then other country's, it's because they educate people and are not degradated and that is good that they can live without internet or some modern stuff, they know how to survive without all that stuff and so should we all!

[RedScare]

I'd say Chavez is definitely a progressive, anti-imperialist force in the region, and I hope he continues to be.

[revolution inaction]

I know that the Cuban health (whatever you call it) is one of the best in the world, and heard education there is nearly free, and that doctors recieve less than in capitalist states.


British health care is among the best in the world (though no where near as good as it should be), education is free until university level and you can get that paid for if you are poor, and doctors are paid less than in America.

Are you going to ask if Britain is socialist?

[KC]

Venezuelan anarchists don't find him particually revolutionary, democratic or Marxist.

http://libcom.org/library/venezuela-behind-smokescreen (http://www.anonym.to/?http://libcom.org/library/venezuela-behind-smokescreen)

I wrote a response (http://www.revleft.com/vb/psuv-prepares-transition-t114988/index.html?p=1519142&highlight=Chavez#post1519142) to this article a while ago:


Every article you read is going to be biased to some extent, so why would you expect that the user that posted a link to the LibCom article tried claiming it was unbiased? The point is that the LibCom article does make some very valid points. Let me quote from the article:


These programmes are largely financed through oil money, which has finally started to slowly trickle down to the poor especially after the “nationalisation” of the oil industry. I say “nationalisation” but in reality I am talking about mixed business ventures with multinationals, of which the government has a slightly larger cut. Both parties are satisfied with the deal. The multinationals are guaranteed profits, albeit smaller than before, whilst Chavez can claim that now the oil belongs to the people. These manoeuvres are just one example illustrating the centrality of populism above real results. After all, as Business Week points out, Chavez is “not so bad for business.[ii]”This is completely true. The Venezuelan government announces its intention to 'nationalize' a company, they enter into negotiations with the corporation and settle on a reasonable price, and purchase 51% of it, giving them control. If you think that this is a "socialist" measure then you are as delusional as those on the right that claim that Obama is a socialist for "nationalizing" the American auto industry.


Now, what is also interesting is that not here on RevLeft, nor anywhere else, have I seen reports on how these companies are restructured following 'nationalization,' if indeed they are restructured at all. I have seen some reports about workers' cooperatives, of course, but these are not relevant when we are discussing, say, PDVSA, the oil company that basically drives the Venezuelan economy.


Now, in this section the article goes on to criticize Chavez for corruption, which I don't necessarily think is fair; corruption, of course, is a very real issue in South American countries, going back decades upon decades. I don't expect Chavez to fix this problem any time soon, if indeed he is trying (I still cannot tell if his party is actually attempting to battle corruption or merely exploiting it in order to get rid of opposition leaders).


Meh, I was going to go through the whole article but I got lazy and don't feel like it anymore.


Cuba is a socialist country notwithstanding all the problems derived from her isolation, economical backwardness and not totally proletarian leadership. Of course you can argue against this if you happen to be an anti-Leninist or a sectarian Trotskyist.

How does arguing that Cuba is not socialist make one sectarian?


However, Chávez is a great ally for all the progressive forces of the Venezuelan society.

And what of the socialists?

[cb9's_unity]

you can't support Democracy and communism, those are different things...

Is this sarcasm?

To the OP, the libcom article sums it up nicely. Chavez is certainly doing some progressive things but it is not so perfect that we shouldn't be keeping a very critical eye on it.

[chegitz guevara]

The truth is, we won't be able to write the book on Chavez until after he's done. Lots of dogmatics and sectarians attack him for "not make the revolution" as if that is something that can be done by one man alone.

Maybe what is going on in Venezuela is something different. The bourgeois state was broken by the failure of the 2002 golpe, but in its place, a workers state was not built. Instead you have a Bonapartist state, relying on the bourgeoisie being off balance, but the workers not yet having their full strength. Chavez sits on top this state engaging in a careful balancing act, clearly favoring the lower classes, but wary of moving too fast.

Neither Marx nor Lenin ever said the revolution takes place over night nor what it would look like. Every time I'm ready to write Chavez off, something happens to make me question myself.

[Luisrah]

Neither Marx nor Lenin ever said the revolution takes place over night nor what it would look like.

I suppose you're right.

Well, he IS anti-Imperialist, and he has a good margin of operations because of the oil he sells.

The people support him a lot, and maybe he uses that to go slowly instead of making any mistakes.

We'll have to wait and see.

[KC]

Well, he IS anti-Imperialist

While trade with the US has halved in the past year, Russian investment in the country's famous Orinocos oil field has increased five-fold, with the signing of the $30 billion investment agreement.


The people support him a lot, and maybe he uses that to go slowly instead of making any mistakes.

His approval rating is currently at 57.3%, while Obama's is currently at around 51%, so I don't think you can really measure our position by approval ratings.

[Guerrilla22]

I saw in a docummentary that workers and simple people could go to a big owner's land that was unused for a long time and take it for themselves to cultivate.
That's a socialist move isn't it?


Agrarian reform is a pretty popular cocept in Latin America as most of the land is owned by only a small fraction of the population. However, the goal should be to expropriate all lands and companies privately owned and hand them over to the workers, not just those that are not being used. The goal is elimination of private property all together.

[Luisrah]

Agrarian reform is a pretty popular cocept in Latin America as most of the land is owned by only a small fraction of the population. However, the goal should be to expropriate all lands and companies privately owned and hand them over to the workers, not just those that are not being used. The goal is elimination of private property all together.

Yes, but isn't going to fast going to disrupt the process?
I mean, first, anyone that has some sense sees that it isn't non legitimate to take the unused lands.
And once that's done, maybe the rest will follow.

[scarletghoul]

Blanket condemnation of Chavez simply because Venezuela is not yet communist is an extremily stupid ultraleftist position to take. Looking into the situation more, it's clear that the country is undergoing a radical transformation. The PSUV is putting the major industries under public ownership, creating peoples' councils for more thorough and effective democracy, and also building itself as a good vanguard of the revolution, as it has huge popular participation by the people, most of whom seem to want communism. The climax of the revolution, the final transition from bourgeois state to workers' state, has yet to come; this is all preliminary work it seems. It is still revolutionary nonetheless.

This isn't an orthadox Leninist revolution, but that's no reason to dismiss it for its originality.


Are you going to ask if Britain is socialist?
This is a stupid comparison. I don't remember the Queen advocating workers' militias.

[KC]

The PSUV is putting the major industries under public ownership

The PSUV is putting major industries under state ownership. Let me quote from one of my earlier posts:



These programmes are largely financed through oil money, which has finally started to slowly trickle down to the poor especially after the “nationalisation” of the oil industry. I say “nationalisation” but in reality I am talking about mixed business ventures with multinationals, of which the government has a slightly larger cut. Both parties are satisfied with the deal. The multinationals are guaranteed profits, albeit smaller than before, whilst Chavez can claim that now the oil belongs to the people. These manoeuvres are just one example illustrating the centrality of populism above real results. After all, as Business Week points out, Chavez is “not so bad for business.[ii]”

This is completely true. The Venezuelan government announces its intention to 'nationalize' a company, they enter into negotiations with the corporation and settle on a reasonable price, and purchase 51% of it, giving them control. If you think that this is a "socialist" measure then you are as delusional as those on the right that claim that Obama is a socialist for "nationalizing" the American auto industry.

Now, what is also interesting is that not here on RevLeft, nor anywhere else, have I seen reports on how these companies are restructured following 'nationalization,' if indeed they are restructured at all. I have seen some reports about workers' cooperatives, of course, but these are not relevant when we are discussing, say, PDVSA, the oil company that basically drives the Venezuelan economy.


creating peoples' councils for more thorough and effective democracy

These as far as I know are only really active on the local level, and are not very influential in regional or national politics.


and also building itself as a good vanguard of the revolution, as it has huge popular participation by the people, most of whom seem to want communism

If it was building as a good vanguard, then it (i.e. the PSUV) wouldn't expel members for dissent but rather let these debates be had in the open. Nor would it attempt to liquidate all other existing parties into itself. It seems to be more of an attempt to bring these elements under control rather than developing a truly revolutionary party.


This is a stupid comparison. I don't remember the Queen advocating workers' militias.

You missed the point entirely, which was that higher standards of living and a nationalized health care system are not indicators of whether or not a country is socialist.

[Kukulofori]

These as far as I know are only really active on the local level, and are not very influential in regional or national politics.

gee it's almost as if a person living in Caracas has no business deciding what goes on in the Orinoco? If your idea of socialism involves "national politics..."

[el_chavista]

Perhaps Tony Cliff's "deflected permanent revolution" http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/contemp/pamsetc/permrev/permrev.html paper brings us an aproach to a revolution in the absence of the revolutionary subject -the proletariat.


3 Castro's Revolution
...
From the outset Castro's programme did not go beyond the horizon of broad liberal reforms acceptable to the middle classes. In an article to the magazine Coronet of February 1958, Castro declared that he had no plans for expropriating or nationalising foreign investments:
"I personally have come to feel that nationalisation is, at best, a cumbersome instrument. It does not seem to make the state any stronger, yet it enfeebles private enterprise. Even more importantly, any attempt at wholesale nationalisation would obviously hamper the principal point of our economic platform-industrialisation at the fastest possible rate. For this purpose, foreign investments will always be welcome and secure here."
In May 1958, he assured his biographer, Dubois:
"Never has the 26th of July Movement talked about socialising or nationalising the industries. This is simply stupid fear of our revolution. We have proclaimed from the first day that we fight for the full enforcement of the Constitution of 1940, whose norms establish guarantees, rights and obligations for all the elements that have a part in production. Comprised therein is free enterprise and invested capital as well as many other economic, civic, and political rights."
As late as 2 May 1959, Castro declared to the Economic Council of the Organisation of American States in Buenos Aires: 'We are not opposed to private investment... We believe in, the usefulness, in the experience and in the enthusiasm of private investors... Companies with international investments will have the same guarantees and the same rights as the national firms.'

The impotence of the contending social classes, workers and capitalists, peasants and landlords, the inherent historical weakness of the middle class, and the omnipotence of the new Castro elite, who were not bound by any set of coherent, organised interests, explains the ease with which Castro's moderate programme of the years 1953-58, based on private enterprise, was cast aside and replaced by a radical programme of state ownership and planning. It was not before 16 April 1961 that Castro announced that the revolution had been socialist. In the words of the President of the Republic, Dr Osvaldo Dorticos Torrado, the people 'one fine day... discovered or confirmed, that what they have been applauding, which was good for the people, was a Socialist Revolution.' An excellent formulation of the Bonapartist manipulation of the people as the object of history, not its conscious subject!

[chegitz guevara]

The PSUV is putting major industries under state ownership. Let me quote from one of my earlier posts:

Can you point me to the quote from Marx or Lenin that tells us how to carry out a nationalization?

[KC]

Can you point me to the quote from Marx or Lenin that tells us how to carry out a nationalization?

Can you answer the questions raised in the post I quoted? Do you think nationalizations in and of themselves are revolutionary? What makes you think that PDVSA, for example, is run any differently than say a public utilities company is run in the US?

You should really address my points before raising cries of ultra-leftism, as I believe the points I raised are not only legitimate but absolutely essential. As far as I am aware I have not called anyone names in this thread yet, so how about a little more respect and productive discourse instead of misrepresentations?

[willdw79]

Blanket condemnation of Chavez simply because Venezuela is not yet communist is an extremily stupid ultraleftist position to take. Looking into the situation more, it's clear that the country is undergoing a radical transformation. The PSUV is putting the major industries under public ownership, creating peoples' councils for more thorough and effective democracy, and also building itself as a good vanguard of the revolution, as it has huge popular participation by the people, most of whom seem to want communism. The climax of the revolution, the final transition from bourgeois state to workers' state, has yet to come; this is all preliminary work it seems. It is still revolutionary nonetheless.

This isn't an orthadox Leninist revolution, but that's no reason to dismiss it for its originality.


This is a stupid comparison. I don't remember the Queen advocating workers' militias.
As usual your rejection of sectarianism is exactly my position.

I agree that the contry is probably moving in the best direction.

I believe that they are painfully slow to act because, they don't want a bureacratic mess like some revolutions have turned out to be. They are trying to avoid having a situation where the working class has not yet grasped, internalized, and supports the aims of revolution.

It seems like the socialist party, the communist party, and other supporters of Chavez and/or communism want to make a revolution that will last and not be succeptible to coups or toppling by imperialists, which has been an issue in the past. They are taking this time while their influence is strong, to make it even stronger. But not strengthening it by force/repression, but by pursuing programs that demonstrate to everyone that communism is the right path.

The right-wing in that country is very rich, organized, and rutheless (not to mention the lumpenproletariat in Venezuela they may pay to cause trouble). Although they cannot win against the masses, they could destabilize the country to the point where the leftists may seem like they are failing. One of the strongpoints of socialism/communism is that it feeds everyone, but if you have to fight a civil war, it gets more difficult to feed everyone, and it could sap support.

I can't tell if it will work, but I am curious to see how it plays out, and I believe that it is a deliberate attempt at socialism/communism. Their analysis has led them to think that right now they should consolidate their support, and they may be right.


Chegitz was right on. I think that Venezuela could be a dictatorship of the proletariat if Chavez and others would try and push for a revolution. It sounds a lil strange, but Chavez should and is urged by some ensure that the conditions are welcoming for a working class socialist revolution.

You can check out this article http://links.org.au/node/283 called "
Venezuelan left debates the PSUV: The importance of the Communist Party as a revolutionary organisation", it sort of outlines some of the debate, but you will have to read a lot more to sort of gauge the status of Venezuela.

I would consider Venezuela to be a co-dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and the part of the working-class. But it is definately in transistion, nobody knows where it will end up.

[chegitz guevara]

Can you answer the questions raised in the post I quoted? Do you think nationalizations in and of themselves are revolutionary? What makes you think that PDVSA, for example, is run any differently than say a public utilities company is run in the US?

You should really address my points before raising cries of ultra-leftism, as I believe the points I raised are not only legitimate but absolutely essential. As far as I am aware I have not called anyone names in this thread yet, so how about a little more respect and productive discourse instead of misrepresentations?

First, let me apologize for being rude.

I don't think your description of how the nationalizations are carried out is a relevant argument against whether or not the PSUV is carrying out a socialist revolution. Lenin wrote there is no blueprint for the revolution, and no country is going to carry out the revolution the same way. So I'm asking you to prove the relevance of your claims (the facts of which I do not dispute). Kautsky, Marx, Lenin, and others wrote of a process that took a long time, not one that was carried out quickly.

The worker class in Venezuela isn't yet capable of managing most companies, let alone the whole economy. This is a process that takes years. It's well known that many of the most knowledgeable people, managers, engineers, etc., are leaving Venezuela. It think, until the worker class is ready to assume command, it's probably a good idea not to provoke civil war or throw all the imperialist corporations out.

Now, all that said doesn't mean that a socialist revolution is actually being carried out. I'm still ambivalent/agnostic on that point. I have a lot of reservations about Chavez, but the truth is, we don't know what he intends, we don't know how strong the forces arrayed against the workers are, we don't know how capable the workers of Venezuela are at the moment. I think it is premature to say one way or the other what the Bolivarian Revolutions is.

Given that, I think the best tactic is for revolutionaries to critically support it until we are proven wrong. As we have seen in Nepal, claims about the betrayal of the workers by the Maobadi has proven premature.

A very wise Maoist once told me, Trotskyists support every revolution but the ones that succeed. Now I think there's a lot of truth to that statement. I think it also applies to Maoists when we talk about Cuba, Venezuela, Angola, the USSR, etc.

What it comes down to now is, I'd rather accidentally support a non-socialist process than fail to support the workers and a socialist revolution.