Chavez calls for the Fifth International

[Das war einmal]

"At the opening session of the PSUV congress Chavez made a very radical left-wing speech, calling for the setting up of a new international, explaining that it was necessary to destroy the bourgeois state and replace it with a revolutionary state, but also referring to the bureaucracy within the Bolivarian movement itself. It was clearly a speech that reflects the enormous pressure from the masses below who are getting tired of talk about socialism, while real progress towards genuine change appears to be frustratingly slow."

more: http://www.marxist.com/first-extraordinary-congress-psuv.htm

A fifth international, is that something we really need? Or is it just a new way of saying old things...

[gorillafuck]

He's pretty all over the place, isn't he?

And I don't think a 5th international will be constructed because of this. Didn't he also propose an anti-imperialist NATO of sorts?

[Das war einmal]

He's pretty all over the place, isn't he?

And I don't think a 5th international will be constructed because of this. Didn't he also propose an anti-imperialist NATO of sorts?


I wouldnt be suprised. Maybe and it would be quite likely, he sees Venezuela, the PSUV and himself as the new leading force of socialism. Not suprising seeing as with the fall of the USSR there is this gap of no political movement or state willing to bear the flag.

[cb9's_unity]

My opinion of Chavez has been worsening lately but I don't see the harm in at least looking into this, or at least giving some larger socialist meeting a try. Any form of unity between socialists might be a good thing at this point.

[bcbm]

i think the important question is whether or not the fifth international will have an open bar.

[black magick hustla]

the whole tragedy of the comintern is screened again

[genstrike]

Isn't there already some tiny trot group claiming to be the fifth international?

[pranabjyoti]

At least he is trying to do something. Everybody, who call themselves anti-imperialist, should support this attempt.

[which doctor]

first as tragedy, second as farce; what do you call attempt #5?

[bcbm]

romantic comedy?

[La Comédie Noire]

He's definitely had to step up his rhetoric to appease people, but this could be a good thing. There hasn't been an official meeting of nations against U.S. Imperialism for time out of mind. He's doing something the bourgeoisie of Latin America is too corrupted and middling to do.


Isn't there already some tiny trot group claiming to be the fifth international?

Most likely the fifth international will amount to the heads of state of central and Latin America coming together to discuss protecting themselves from U.S. Imperialism along with key trading partners such as Russia and Iran. Thus, he emphasizes the continents destiny in the revolution:


Chavez pointed out that all these Internationals were originally based in Europe, reflecting the class battles in Europe at that time, but that today the epicentre of world revolution was in Latin America, and especially in Venezuela. He pointed to the presence at the Congress of 55 left parties from 39 countries, which had signed a document called the Caracas Agreement (El Compromiso de Caracas), based on the idea of a worldwide fight against imperialism and capitalism, for socialism.

This is more about national survival than international socialism, with a coup in Honduras and military bases being built in Colombia it is time someone did something to protect their gains. The only question is how will the world powers criticize this? I don't think the machinations of international jewery will fly this time around. :laugh:

[pranabjyoti]

romantic comedy?
Tragedy for capitalism, melodrama for proletariat and comedy for the "armchair revolutionary" idiots.

[pranabjyoti]

This is more about national survival than international socialism, with a coup in Honduras and military bases being built in Colombia it is time someone did something to protect their gains. The only question is how will the world powers criticize this? I don't think the machinations of international jewery will fly this time around. :laugh:
If Venezuela can lead any kind of anti-imperialist struggle of this days, then its survival is CERTAINLY something very crucial for INTERNATIONAL SOCIALISM.

[NecroCommie]

I don't see the harm in this... yet. The truth is that the international communist organizations are ridiculously splintered and practically no co-operation exists. If it is fifth international that is needed to supply this, then so be it.

I do however understand those who take this with a hint of skepticism, as it is not wise to take this at face value. When Venezuela itself reaches revolution and sets up it's goal as socialism, I'll become their fanboy. :thumbup: It's quite daft of Chavez really to expect every socialist to rally behind him, as he himself has not been able to flame a simple revolution in a country that is ripe for class consciousness.

[FSL]

I do however understand those who take this with a hint of skepticism, as it is not wise to take this at face value. When Venezuela itself reaches revolution and sets up it's goal as socialism, I'll become their fanboy. :thumbup: It's quite daft of Chavez really to expect every socialist to rally behind him, as he himself has not been able to flame a simple revolution in a country that is ripe for class consciousness.


This sums up what I think quite nicely. What's the reason in having all of the world's left rally behind Chavez when he moves slower than a turtle? You 'll ofcourse support him against his "democratic" opposition but a socialist international where socialism can coexist with private bankers? Meh, I can wait.

[Rusty Shackleford]

This sums up what I think quite nicely. What's the reason in having all of the world's left rally behind Chavez when he moves slower than a turtle? You 'll ofcourse support him against his "democratic" opposition but a socialist international where socialism can coexist with private bankers? Meh, I can wait.


my opinion of chavez changes quite a bit. but seriously. how fast do you expect an elected revolutionary to move? maybe this will work out... maybe slow will do it. this may fly in the face of any dogmatic/sectarian leftist's views, but its worth some support.

[Dimentio]

I don't think the machinations of international jewery will fly this time around. :laugh:

Please elaborate?

[FSL]

my opinion of chavez changes quite a bit. but seriously. how fast do you expect an elected revolutionary to move? maybe this will work out... maybe slow will do it. this may fly in the face of any dogmatic/sectarian leftist's views, but its worth some support.


Even if being elected democratically was his problem in bringing forth big changes at the beginning, I can't see how it still was after the coup when he was put in power by a popular revolution.
The media had supported it, the opposing parties had supported it, the dictator himself was the head of the businessmen. You have the chance to wipe the place and with a good reason, with your support at more than 60% across the whole population which should mean almost universal amongst workers. Now, being 11 years away from 1998, the situation there seems a bit... disheartening let's say.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Tragedy for capitalism, melodrama for proletariat and comedy for the "armchair revolutionary" idiots.

I'm sure the forces of international capitalism are absolutely terrified by this proposition. :lol:

[Comrade Gwydion]

Even if being elected democratically was his problem in bringing forth big changes at the beginning, I can't see how it still was after the coup when he was put in power by a popular revolution.
The media had supported it, the opposing parties had supported it, the dictator himself was the head of the businessmen. You have the chance to wipe the place and with a good reason, with your support at more than 60% across the whole population which should mean almost universal amongst workers. Now, being 11 years away from 1998, the situation there seems a bit... disheartening let's say.


Well... here's the thing: he didn't 'wipe' out the opposition, and that's a good thing. Anyone who wants to 'wipe out' the opposition instead of beat it, can leave this place and join scumfront for all I care.
Admitted: Chavez was extremely soft on those who tried to coup him: they even maintained their right to broadcast, untill the contract was finished. However, this was very good PR. Ofcourse, when Chavez choose not to give them a second contract, the spindoctors turned it around again.

[zimmerwald1915]

the whole tragedy of the comintern is screened again
No. The Comintern was at least a revolutionary organization. Taking a look at the groups invited to this "Fifth International", one sees a very eclectic mix, their only common denominator being counter-revolutionary.

[FSL]

Well... here's the thing: he didn't 'wipe' out the opposition, and that's a good thing. Anyone who wants to 'wipe out' the opposition instead of beat it, can leave this place and join scumfront for all I care.
Admitted: Chavez was extremely soft on those who tried to coup him: they even maintained their right to broadcast, untill the contract was finished. However, this was very good PR. Ofcourse, when Chavez choose not to give them a second contract, the spindoctors turned it around again.


A play on words, how very impressive.


Going soft on businessmen that stage coups is good PR? I 'm not supporting anyone who cares about how CNN portrays him. It's good PR with whom? Not with the workers who risked -and some lost- their lives overthrowing the dictatorship.

[rararoadrunner]

Camaradas muuuuuuuuuuuuuy estimadas:

On behalf of myself and the comrades of the Peace and Freedom Party of the US (of which I'm a State and County Central Committee member), I would like to ask whether you think the PFP should get involved in this. Is this the real deal...or another political dodge?

Another PFP Central Committee member offered this article for our consideration, which I reproduce for yours:


Venezuela's Chavez Calls for International Organisation of Left Parties

November 23rd 2009, by Kiraz Janicke - Venezuelanalysis.com
President Chavez addresses Conference of Left Parties (ABN)
<http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/files/imagecache/medium/images/2009/11/Chav
ez_left_conf_nov21_09.jpg>

Caracas, November 23rd 2009 (Venezuelanalysis.com) - Venezuelan President
Hugo Chavez called for the formation of a "Fifth International" of left
parties and social movements to confront the challenge posed by the global
crisis of capitalism.

The president made the announcement during an international conference of
more than fifty left organisations from thirty-one countries held in Caracas
over November 19-21.

"I assume responsibility before the world. I think it is time to convene the
Fifth International, and I dare to make the call, which I think is a
necessity. I dare to request that we create my proposal," Chavez said.

The head of state insisted that the conference of left parties should not be
"just one more meeting," and he invited participating organizations to
create a truly new project. "This socialist encounter should be of the
genuine left, willing to fight against imperialism and capitalism," he said.

During his speech, Chavez briefly outlined the experiences of previous
"internationals," including the First International founded in 1864 by Karl
Marx; the Second International founded in 1889, which collapsed in 1916 as
various left parties and trade unions sided with their respective capitalist
classes in the inter-imperialist conflict of the First World War; the Third
International founded by Russian revolutionary Vladimir Lenin, which Chavez
said "degenerated" under Stalinism and "betrayed" struggles for socialism
around the world; and the Fourth International founded by Leon Trotsky in
1938, which suffered numerous splits and no longer exists, although some
small groups claim to represent its political continuity.

Chavez said that a new international would have to function "without
impositions" and would have to respect diversity.

Representatives from a number of major parties in Latin America voiced their
support for the proposal, including the Movement Towards Socialism (MAS) of
Bolivia, the Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front (FMLN) of El
Salvador, the Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN) of Nicaragua, and
Alianza Pais of Ecuador.

Smaller parties from Latin America and around the world also indicated their
support for Chavez's proposal, including the Proposal for an Alternative
Society (PAS) of Chile, New Nation Alternative (ANN) of Guatemala, and
Australia's Socialist Alliance, among others.

Sandinista leader Miguel D´Escoto said, "Capitalism has brought the human
species to the precipice of extinction... we have to take control of our own
destiny."

"There is no time to lose," D'Escoto added as he conveyed his support for
the proposal of forming a fifth international. "We have to overcome the
tendency of defeatism. Many times I have noted a tendency of defeatism
amongst comrades of the left in relation to the tasks we face," he
continued.

Salvador Sánchez, from the FMLN, said "We are going to be important actors
in the Fifth International. We cannot continue waiting - all the forces of
the left. The aspiration of the peoples is to walk down a different path. We
must not hesitate in forming the Fifth International. The people have
pronounced themselves in favour of change and the parties of the left must
be there with them."

Other organisations, including Portugal's Left Block, Germany's Die Linke,
and France's Partido Gauche expressed interest in the proposal but said they
would consult with their various parties. A representative of the Cuban
Communist Party described the proposal as "excellent," but as yet the party
has made no formal statement.

Many communist parties, including those from Greece and Brazil, expressed
strong opposition to the proposal. The Venezuelan Communist Party said it
was willing to discuss the proposal but expressed strong reservations.

The Alternative Democratic Pole (PDA) from Colombia expressed its
willingness to work with other left parties, but said it would "reserve" its
decision to participate in an international organisation of left parties.

Valter Pomar, a representative from the Workers Party of Brazil (PT), said
its priority is the Sao Paolo Forum - a forum of various Latin American
left, socialist, communist, centre-left, labour, social democratic and
nationalist parties launched by the PT in 1990.

A resolution was passed at the conference to form a preparatory committee to
convoke a global conference of left parties in Caracas in April 2010, to
discuss the formation of a new international. The resolution also allowed
for other parties that remain undecided to discuss the proposal and
incorporate themselves at a later date.

Chavez emphasised the importance of being inclusive and said the April
conference had to go far beyond the parties and organisations that
participated in last week's conference. In particular, he said it was an
error that there were no revolutionary organisations from the United States
present.

The conference of left parties also passed a resolution titled the Caracas
Commitment, "to reaffirm our conviction to definitively build and win
Socialism of the 21st Century," in the face of "the generalized crisis of
the global capitalist system."

"One of the epicentres of the global capitalist crisis is the economic
sphere. This highlights the limitations of unbridled free markets dominated
by monopolies of private property," the resolution stated.

Also incorporated was a proposed amendment by the Australian delegation
which read, "In synthesis, the crisis of capitalism cannot be reduced to a
simple financial crisis, it is a structural crisis of capital that combines
the economic crisis, with an ecological crisis, a food crisis and an energy
crisis, which together represent a mortal threat to humanity and nature. In
the face of this crisis, the movements and parties of the left see the
defence of nature and the construction of an ecologically sustainable
society as a fundamental axis of our struggle for a better world."

The Caracas Commitment expressed "solidarity with the peoples of the world
who have suffered and are suffering from imperialist aggression, especially
the more than 50 years of the genocidal blockade against Cuba... the
massacre of the Palestinian people, the illegal occupation of part of the
territory of the Western Sahara, and the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan,
which today is expanding into Pakistan."

The conference of left parties also denounced the decision of the Mexican
government to shut down the state-owned electricity company and fire 45,000
workers, as an attempt to "intimidate" the workers and as an "offensive of
imperialism," to advance neoliberal privatisation in Central America.

In the framework of the Caracas Commitment, the left parties present agreed,
among other things, to:

* Organise a global week of mobilisation from December 12-17 in
repudiation of the installation of U.S. military bases in Colombia, Panama
and around the world.

* Campaign for an "international trial against George Bush for crimes
against humanity, as the person principally responsible for the genocide
against the people of Iraq and Afghanistan.

* "Commemorate 100 years since the proposal by Clara Zetkin to
celebrate International Women's Day on March 8, through forums,
mobilizations and other activities in their respective countries.

* Organise global solidarity with the Bolivarian revolution in the
face of permanent imperialist attacks.

* Organise global solidarity with the people of Honduras who are
resisting a U.S.-backed military coup, to campaign for the restoration of
the democratically elected president of Honduras, José Manuel Zelaya and to
organise a global vigil on the day of the elections in Honduras, "with which
they aim to legitimise the coup d´etat."

* Demand an "immediate and unconditional end to the criminal Yankee
blockade" of Cuba and for the "immediate liberation" of the Cuban Five,
referring to the five anti-terrorist activists imprisoned in the United
States.

* Accompany the Haitian people in their struggle for the return of
President Jean Bertrand Aristide "who was kidnapped and removed from his
post as president of Haiti by North American imperialism."

What are we to make of this? Hasta pronto, y a la victoria, siempre, MKO.

[Pogue]

It'll be interesting to see and it doesn't really matter for most of us because its not something we'll be involved in anyway, as revolutionaries. I'd like to see it formed just to see the reaction from NATO, et al.

[chebol]

zimmerwald1915 wrote:


The Comintern was at least a revolutionary organization

Yeah, tell that to the KPD, or the socialist leaders of the Praque Spring, etc, etc, etc.


Taking a look at the groups invited to this "Fifth International", one sees a very eclectic mix, their only common denominator being counter-revolutionary.

I take particular, and direct, offence at that comment. The Socialist Alliance here in Australia has delegates at the conference in Venezuela, and was invited to support the initiative for a "fifth international" - which we did.

That is different from joining it, although it doesn't exist yet, and depending upon its structure (which is likely to be quite loose, rather than a replay of the grotesque mistakes of the 3rd and 4th) we may. What Chavez declared was that he's sick of calling for left regroupment/ a new international - he's just going to do it.

So, yes, he is deadly serious this time. rararoadrunner, it is the real deal. Moreover, it is *not* simply an "anti-imperialist" international. The PCV proposed that, but Chavez wouldn't have a bar of it. Whatever you (or I, for that matter) might think of the calibre of some of the parties in attendance who lent their support, the call is for a pluralist, diverse, "21st century socialist" international.

I think it's particularly telling of the state of the left that when a revolutionary, in a country undergoing revolutionary changes and upheaval, on a continent where the same is taking place, calls for international collaboration between socialists, some petty armchair warriors poo-poo it without a second thought, and declare everyone involved "counter-revolutionary".

Organising ourselves solely on the grounds of "ideological purity" is a recipe for global disaster and catastrophe at the current juncture. This doesn't mean an abandonment of ideology - the very opposite in fact. But there has never been more need for genuine, tolerant, effective cooperation between socialist forces than there is now.

Maybe this new "international" will assist that. Maybe not. But you've got to give it a try.

[chebol]

I should also point out, there were quite a number of Trotskyist groups there too, even if they didn't all have official delegations.

[Uppercut]

I'm glad Chavez is so enthusiastic, but I think a fifth International is a bit out of the way right now.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Chavez, in spite of his opportunism regarding Mugable, Idi Amin, and Carlos the Jackal, is unwise to call this some sort of "fifth" international. By legitimizing what the ex-Trotskyist Louis Proyect called a "sectarian mistake" (i.e., Fourth International), he is alienating official Communist parties.

Maybe he should have called this very organization itself the "Fourth" International. Also, he should have said that "Third" International should have been open to interpretation to refer to either the actual Comintern itself or the International Working Union of Socialist Parties - the less-known 2½ International (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Working_Union_of_Socialist_Parties) - since delegates from parties like Die Linke were in attendance.

He also failed to mention the real "fourth" international: the International Revolutionary Marxist Centre or 3½ International (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Revolutionary_Marxist_Centre).

[Crux]

Chavez, in spite of his opportunism regarding Mugable, Idi Amin, and Carlos the Jackal, is unwise to call this some sort of "fifth" international. By legitimizing what the ex-Trotskyist Louis Proyect called a "sectarian mistake" (i.e., Fourth International), he is alienating official communist parties.

Maybe he should have called this very organization itself the "Fourth" International. Also, he should have said that "Third" International should have been open to interpretation to refer to either the actual Comintern itself or the International Working Union of Socialist Parties - the less-known 2½ International (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Working_Union_of_Socialist_Parties) - since delegates from parties like Die Linke were in attendance.

He also failed to mention the real "fourth" international: the International Revolutionary Marxist Centre or 3½ International (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Revolutionary_Marxist_Centre).
"The Three and a half international" was not the "real" Fourth International.

There's nothing wrong at all with recognizing the legacy of the fourth international, although I believe legitmatly a new international could themself the Fourth aswell. I mean, whatever, really.

The real question is what function would this International have, what could it do?

[Honggweilo]

"At the opening session of the PSUV congress Chavez made a very radical left-wing speech, calling for the setting up of a new international, explaining that it was necessary to destroy the bourgeois state and replace it with a revolutionary state, but also referring to the bureaucracy within the Bolivarian movement itself. It was clearly a speech that reflects the enormous pressure from the masses below who are getting tired of talk about socialism, while real progress towards genuine change appears to be frustratingly slow."

more: http://www.marxist.com/first-extraordinary-congress-psuv.htm

A fifth international, is that something we really need? Or is it just a new way of saying old things...

lol, im suprissed nobody mentioned that there already is a fifth international (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_for_the_Fifth_International) :lol:

[Wanted Man]

To be fair, I don't think Chavez and the rest of the PSUV are even aware of that particular club. Pretty much like the rest of the world, except for us left-wing trainspotters.

This "other" 5th International has already had a split, which used the name "iRevo" for a while. I wonder if they also had propaganda posters that looked like iPod ads... Another splinter took on the more old-fashioned naming conventions by calling themselves the "Permanent Revolution Tendency".

[Honggweilo]

To be fair, I don't think Chavez and the rest of the PSUV are even aware of that particular club. Pretty much like the rest of the world, except for us left-wing trainspotters.

This "other" 5th International has already had a split, which used the name "iRevo" for a while. I wonder if they also had propaganda posters that looked like iPod ads... Another splinter took on the more old-fashioned naming conventions by calling themselves the "Permanent Revolution Tendency".

http://www.cultofmac.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/DoubleFacePalm.jpg

[Das war einmal]

lol, im suprissed nobody mentioned that there already is a fifth international (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_for_the_Fifth_International) :lol:


Lets keep things serious

[What Would Durruti Do?]

how fast do you expect an elected revolutionary to move?

I don't expect an ELECTED revolutionary to move at all.

[Rusty Shackleford]

I don't expect an ELECTED revolutionary to move at all.
i have to say though, there is merit to the political method. at least bloodshed is less likely, and the reaction has already been defeated. the Venezuelan people may not have to go through a civil war.
i am generally against democratic revolution because of its inflexibility in execution of revolutionary goals, but, it is definitely worth a shot.

[cyu]

From the article: "he repeated his demand for the establishment of a people's militia, and that every worker, peasant, student, man and woman, should receive military training"

Regardless of what any politician's personal motivations for this are, or what other policies that surround it may do to corrupt it, I think this policy in itself is very important. It could go a long way toward preventing the mass oppression of the population of many Latin American countries throughout the 20th century, by authoritarians of any stripe (often installed by these guys: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/CIAtimeline.html).

As for Chavez's personal motivations, it's possible that he realizes his term in office isn't going to last forever, so he's trying to accomplish as much as he can before he's out. I doubt he wants to see everything he's been busy doing for the past years to be wiped out by the next administration - especially if the American regime decides to fund any pro-capitalist media and candidates in pro-capitalist parties. Maybe it's just an ego thing, who knows - nobody can ever really know what's going on in someone else's head anyway.

In any case, if it's just a case of political desperation, it does happen to mesh quite well with the economic desperation of the poor. After all, they are the ones that continue to be screwed the longer capitalism is allowed to go on. As Helen Keller said (http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=2008helen-keller), “What? Are we to put difference of party tactics before the desperate needs of the workers? Are we no better than the capitalist politicians who stand in the high places and harangue about petty matters, while millions of the people are underpaid, underfed, thrown out of work and dying?”

[Niccolò Rossi]

Yeah, tell that to the KPD

Are you seriously suggesting the KPD was not a revolutionary organisation?

Of course, this was not the case after the early 1920's, however this is not what Zimmerwald1915 is referring to.


or the socialist leaders of the Praque Spring

The Comintern (then only in name) dissolved in 1943


I take particular, and direct, offence at that comment.

The DSP and SAlli are counter-revolutionary organisations. Whether or not you take offense to it doesn't change anything.


That is different from joining it, although it doesn't exist yet, and depending upon its structure (which is likely to be quite loose, rather than a replay of the grotesque mistakes of the 3rd and 4th) we may.

Oh dear


I think it's particularly telling of the state of the left that when a revolutionary, in a country undergoing revolutionary changes and upheaval, on a continent where the same is taking place, calls for international collaboration between socialists, some petty armchair warriors poo-poo it without a second thought, and declare everyone involved "counter-revolutionary".

Who are you calling a 'petty armchair warrior'?

[chebol]

niccolo,

my reference to the KPD, and the victims of Soviet aggression in the Prague spring was intended to undermine the claim that the Comintern, and the subsequent dictatorial rule of the international communist movement from Moscow, was particularly "revolutionary" in organisation or character. Even when it "was", the role of the Comintern in totally fucking over the KPD, and the German revolution, raises serious question marks.

Please learn how to read.

You write:


The DSP and SAlli are counter-revolutionary organisations. Whether or not you take offense to it doesn't change anything.

We're not counter-revolutionary, despite whatever pseudo-theoretical self-aggrandisment you've concocted to make yourself feel better.

Who's a petty little ultra-left internet warrior? Well, you're the one that took the bait...

[Kléber]

Didn't he also propose an anti-imperialist NATO of sorts?

He already founded it.

Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas (ALBA) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolivarian_Alliance_for_the_Americas)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d1/Bolivarian_Alliance_for_the_Peoples_of_Our_America _%28orthographic_projection%29.svg/225px-Bolivarian_Alliance_for_the_Peoples_of_Our_America _%28orthographic_projection%29.svg.png

[Niccolò Rossi]

my reference to the KPD, and the victims of Soviet aggression in the Prague spring was intended to undermine the claim that the Comintern, and the subsequent dictatorial rule of the international communist movement from Moscow, was particularly "revolutionary" in organisation or character. Even when it "was", the role of the Comintern in totally fucking over the KPD, and the German revolution, raises serious question marks.

Please learn how to read.

Thanks for clarifying. No thanks for being a smart arse about it. Your original comments weren't particularly clear, so I think it's pretty understandable that I could be confused. Of course, don't let that get in the way of your point scoring, even when it may deeply offend those who do not speak english as a first language or who suffer from dsylexia.

In response to your main point; I find it interesting that whilst so many Marxists feel the need to fetishise 'Dialectical Materialism', they are completely unable to understand reality as dynamic, in a state of motion and flux. The Communist International was not a counter-revolutionary organisation from it's foundation. Nor did it's revolutionary credentials and thoroughly proletarian character at the time of its formation mean that it retained these characteristics for the duration of it's life span.

So let me ask you, was the Communsit International, at any time, a revolutionary organisation? If so, when and why? In addition to this, does Chavez's proposed 'Fifth International' represent a revolutionary organisation?


We're not counter-revolutionary, despite whatever pseudo-theoretical self-aggrandisment you've concocted to make yourself feel better.

Who's a petty little ultra-left internet warrior? Well, you're the one that took the bait...

If there is any self-aggreandisment going on here, it is from you. Contrary to yourself I don't find the need to infrequently visit an internet discussion forum only to thrown round acusation of 'sectarianism', 'ultra-leftism', and the status of every second poster as being an 'armchair socialist' or 'internet warrior'.

Also, I take the fact that you are now laying 'bait' for me as a compliment. It makes me all feel warm and fuzzy inside to know that you are thinking of me. :wub:

[pranabjyoti]

I'm sure the forces of international capitalism are absolutely terrified by this proposition. :lol:
If that can result in something fruitful, they certainly will.:(

[Forward Union]

Chavez calls for the Fifth International (http://www.revleft.com/vb/chavez-calls-fifth-t123122/index.html)

Whatever?

[LeninistKing]

Dear socialist friends and brothers: We need a United Socialist Front in USA, working together, linked and combined with United Socialist Fronts of other countries as well. as soon as possible (ASAP) (I mean each country with a United Socialist Front.

The free market system is not providing psychological emotional stability for americans any more. Years ago people could open a small business, like a gym, bakery or pizza restaurant real easy. But today in this stage of capitalism (Monopoly-Capitalism) only rich people can open businesses. Another thing is that years ago the workers were richer than today (their real-salary was higher than today)

In other words: There is literally no way for american poor people to get out of poverty in this stage of capitalism (neoliberal, monopoly-capitalism-imperialism, oligarchic-capitalist imperialism for mega-corporations like Mcdonalds, WalMart etc)


LeninistKing




If that can result in something fruitful, they certainly will.:(

[chebol]

Sorry Piccolo, but you're wrong again.

1. My original post was pretty clear (my first language isn't english either, and claiming a speech disability is no excuse. It's an explanation, perhaps, but not an excuse for your response.


2. I Never claimed the Comintern was counter-revolutionary, I merely asserted that it wasn't revolutionary. But then, fundamentalist idiots like you seem to have a problem realising that the world isn't simply black and white.

3. You write:


The Communist International was not a counter-revolutionary organisation from it's foundation. Nor did it's revolutionary credentials and thoroughly proletarian character at the time of its formation mean that it retained these characteristics for the duration of it's life span.

I agree. Your point is...? Learn some history, then come back and talk.

4. You also write:


Contrary to yourself I don't find the need to infrequently visit an internet discussion forum only to thrown round acusation of 'sectarianism', 'ultra-leftism', and the status of every second poster as being an 'armchair socialist' or 'internet warrior'.

Damn fucking straight, moron. I spend most of my time dealing with real working class forces forces, instead of talking about them in the abstract. I only come here infrequently because this isn't the main focus of my activity. I prefer to deal with *real* workers, not fictional ones.

[Q]

Damn fucking straight, moron.
Verbal warning. Keep it civil.

[chebol]

That was civil. Being called a counter-revolutionary - after decades of dedication to the proletarian struggle - by an immature, patronising, and self-aggrandising member of an irrelevant sect in the context of this thread would otherwise suggest further and harsher terminology. I was exercising conscious and qualified restraint.

No undue disrespect to Niccolo, naturallly.

[Q]

That was civil. Being called a counter-revolutionary - after decades of dedication to the proletarian struggle - by an immature, patronising, and self-aggrandising member of an irrelevant sect in the context of this thread would otherwise suggest further and harsher terminology. I was exercising conscious and qualified restraint.

No undue disrespect to Niccolo, naturallly.

However you may feel about the term "counter-revolutionary", it is not by definition a term of abuse although NR could explain his position as to why he thinks your organisation is counter-revolutionary, so the discussion goes about politics, not terms.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Sorry Piccolo, but you're wrong again.

Haha. I'll give you a point for that one, I laughed.


1. My original post was pretty clear

I don't think it was. There isn't much more to say.


my first language isn't english either, and claiming a speech disability is no excuse. It's an explanation, perhaps, but not an excuse for your response.

Just to clarify, I didn't make any such claims. I simply pointed out why you should be more careful with your comments so as not to cause offense. It's hard to take those kind of things back.


2. I Never claimed the Comintern was counter-revolutionary, I merely asserted that it wasn't revolutionary. But then, fundamentalist idiots like you seem to have a problem realising that the world isn't simply black and white.

This is to some extent a fair point. I think I have been somewhat loose with my words.

Could you still explain to me then, if the Communist International was not revolutionary (at any time?) nor counter-revolutionary (at any time?), then what was it(and when)?


I agree. Your point is...? Learn some history, then come back and talk.

Insults are not a substitute for answering my questions.


Damn fucking straight, moron. I spend most of my time dealing with real working class forces forces, instead of talking about them in the abstract. I only come here infrequently because this isn't the main focus of my activity. I prefer to deal with *real* workers, not fictional ones.

Chebol, why do you assume that I, like you claim about yourself, do not spend "most of my time dealing with real working class forces, instead of talking about them in the abstract". To me this seems like a completely baseless assumption. You don't know anything about me. You don't know where I live. You don't know what I do for a living. You don't know what I do in my spare time. You don't know what my political activity consists of.

Don't talk about things you know nothing about.


member of an irrelevant sect

Which sect would that be? Maybe you know something I don't.


No undue disrespect to Niccolo, naturallly.

Thanks...

[Bilan]

That was civil. Being called a counter-revolutionary - after decades of dedication to the proletarian struggle - by an immature, patronising, and self-aggrandising member of an irrelevant sect in the context of this thread would otherwise suggest further and harsher terminology. I was exercising conscious and qualified restraint.

No undue disrespect to Niccolo, naturallly.

Man, no wonder no one likes the Socialist Alliance. Because to you guys, this really is being civil. Civil being perhaps a euphemism for being a jerk.

[Dr Mindbender]

5th international?

I didnt realise the 4th had finished yet.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

The creation of a Fifth International would be a very good idea to enhance the Communist struggle worldwide. The anti-revisionist Communists should unite in an international revolutionary organ, without revisionist and social-democratic treachery. We also need a Fifth International because we can't rely on the Fourth International, and restarting the Third International is as good as impossible.

I support the idea.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

5th international?

I didnt realise the 4th had finished yet.
It hasn't, but it's just a bunch of trotskyists, we've seen enough of them in the past, I don't think we can trust them.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

lol, im suprissed nobody mentioned that there already is a fifth international (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_for_the_Fifth_International) :lol:
Damn, even more extremist counterrevolutionary trotskyists...

Well let's found the Sixth International then, and make it an Anti-Revisionist International, loyal to the People and the Party line of Marxism-Leninism.
If anything, that's what we need:thumbup1:

[Die Neue Zeit]

But you're legitimizing the history of the so-called "Fourth International" and "Fifth International," though.

[Ernest Valdemar]

Reaction of the Fourth International:

During an international meeting of left parties held in Caracas from 19-21 November, 2009, Hugo Chavez launched a call for a Fifth Socialist International which, according to him, should bring together left parties and social movements. According to the president of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela, the Fifth International must be “an instrument for the unification and the articulation of the struggle of the peoples to save this planet”. In a world political situation marked by a total crisis of the capitalist system, this is a fact important enough to be underlined.

Indeed, leaders or parties who pose the question of an International do not grow on trees. That is the first merit of Chavez’s call.

All the more so as this call is accompanied by a declaration which denounces the systemic character of the capitalist crisis, beyond its financial and banking dimensions, and reaffirms the perspective of a socialism of the 21st century. It calls for an urgent mobilization against the new imperialist offensive in Latin America, by the US administration and the Latin American Right.

On the basis of this call, a broad world anti-imperialist front can be established, to mark its solidarity with the struggle of the peoples for their social and political rights, to oppose the new US bases in Colombia, to support, in particular, the mobilization of the people of Honduras against the new dictatorial regime.

In the trial of strength in which the imperialists are confronted with the struggles of the peoples, such a world front would constitute an important instrument to fight the power of the ruling classes, not only in Latin America but in the whole world.

We are ready, as we have been since the beginning, in solidarity with the Cuban revolution, the Bolivarian revolution, with the experiences in Bolivia and Ecuador, to fully commit ourselves to the common fight against the imperialist attacks imperialists and to take our full place in this world anti-imperialist front.

It is also within this framework that the process of construction of a new International would be posed. Chavez calls for the establishment of a Socialist Fifth International. That puts back on the agenda the discussion about a new International. Chavez situates the building of the Fifth International in continuity with the Fourth. We have already declared on many occasions: what do labels matter, if there is convergence over the content. But the constitution of a new International implies a whole process around a programme, policies, and an organization, which must be carried out on the basis of a broad discussion with all the protagonists.

There is, indeed, a new historical period, where divergences between various revolutionary currents can be surmounted on the basis of “a common understanding of events and tasks”. From this point of view, it is not a question of discussing the historical balance sheets of different currents, but it is decisive to learn together the lessons from Stalinism and social democracy, so that the tragedies and the errors of the past are not repeated.

Each party, each organization, each current and each militant must contribute to this debate. As for the Fourth International, it has already formulated, on many occasions, its proposals:

* An anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist programme of emergency demands, which starts from the demands and the social needs of the popular classes, proposes a new distribution of wealth, public and social appropriation of the key sectors of the economy and leads on to the revolutionary transformation of society.

* Unity of action of all the organizations, currents and militants against the attacks of the governments and the capitalist classes.

* Independence of the social movements, associations and trade-union organizations with respect to parties and states.

* Solidarity with all struggles of peoples against all the imperialist powers.

* The fight against oppressions and the defence of the rights of women, homosexuals, young people and immigrants.

* The fight for governments of the workers and popular classes which satisfy the principal social and ecological demands and base themselves on the mobilization of the population and its control over the principal sectors of the economy. This perspective implies not participating in governments which manage the state and the capitalist economy along with the parties of the centre-left or social democracy.

* The central character of the self-emancipation and self-organization of peoples, in the perspective of overthrowing capitalism.

* An ecosocialist project which combines both the satisfaction of social needs and the respect and balance of our ecosystem. In this sense, we have much to learn much from the indigenous peoples of South America and their relationship to the land.

* Socialist democracy as a project of society: self-management of the economy, democracy and pluralism of parties and social movements.
These are some themes for discussion in order to advance along the road of bringing together all anti-capitalists on an international level. They are the first ideas that we will defend in the process of constitution of a new International.

Lastly, Chavez’s call for a Fifth International also constitutes a point of support when it poses the question of a new International, independently of the Second (Socialist) International of which organizations like the social democratic parties, the Mexican PRI and the Brazilian PT are members. But it is also necessary to clarify a question in the construction of a new International, that of the difference between state policies and the development of a political project. One thing is to conclude economic and commercial agreements with states which have anti-imperialist governments, to conclude such agreements with other states, including some which have reactionary regimes, or to oppose attacks of imperialism against certain countries. It is quite another thing to give political support to regimes like those of the Chinese Communist Party or the Islamic Republic of Iran… The project of the Fifth International cannot in any way at all be associated with these regimes.

Once again, this call creates the conditions for a new international discussion, indissociable from solidarity with the Bolivarian revolution. It is in this spirit that the Fourth international, its organizations and its militants, will answer “Present”!

[Artemis3]

He already founded it.
Unfortunately, ALBA does not include military support, yet. Its been proposed though. Also, Chavez has been proposing Brazil and others to form a "SATO" of sorts.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I have nothing against the idea of a meeting between states opposed to imperialism. While Chavez certainly isn't the revolutionary many of us critics want him to be, a meeting which empahtically declares that an end to imperialism of the first world over the third would be nice to see. Of course, one hopes this meeting is more than Chavez, Castro, and Ahmadinejad but instead many leaders from the third world, with representatives from many more around the globe (first world included, of course).

As far as the semantics, which so many members on here seem to devote more attention to than the actual matter at hand (which admittedly does not come as a huge shock), my personal view is that such a meeting would better be called, simply, The International. In this way, such a conference could harken back to earlier examples of leftist organization without tying itself to, how should I put this, trivial political battles mainly involving parties in countries where the left isn't very strong, or at least, not very well organized and certainly not in power.

A conference which proposes an end to imperialism and, perhaps, writing a letter to Mr Obama with the signatures of world leaders from around the globe calling on him to change the policy of the US towards the third world could be quite substantial in generating media attention and popular support from many different circles. The actual physical result of this would probably be minimal but the Left should dump its aversion to good pr, and good politikin.

My point is, at this point, the meeting should go forward but being worried about annoying the "6.5ish Internationalists" or some other trot group (or trots in general, for that matter), or claiming that the International should be dumped because Comrade Stalinomaostro didn't like the orginal concept is infentile. It's the 21st century and nothing declared by the soviets matters anymore. They're not part of this century, we are.

[Ernest Valdemar]

A socialist international is not (pace Stalin) a bunch of heads of state. Some people talk as if Chavez is proposing a leftist version of the G-8. He's not. He's already got ALBA.

A revolutionary socialist international is a free association of socialist political movements, who unite around a common programmatic and strategic perspective for making a world revolution.

It is not a public relations exercise designed to get the attention of Fox News.

[Artemis3]

This won't be a meeting between states, Chavez is calling anyone, from individuals to organizations to join. Of course i guess some heads of state could join, but so can you...

If you are anti-imperialist, and want to end capitalism with Socialism, go ahead. The idea here is to set common goals, define common strategies and act.

We have been debating and fighing among ourselves too much, it is time to go out and change the world.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

But you're legitimizing the history of the so-called "Fourth International" and "Fifth International," though.
Legitimizing? I don't think that is useful. Neither is ignoring their existance.

They are there, the only problem is that they're trots, and therefore inherently opposed to all practical, achievable and existant forms of Socialism.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

Does it already exist? If so, I will join.

[sks]

To be fair, I don't think Chavez and the rest of the PSUV are even aware of that particular club. Pretty much like the rest of the world, except for us left-wing trainspotters.

This "other" 5th International has already had a split, which used the name "iRevo" for a while. I wonder if they also had propaganda posters that looked like iPod ads... Another splinter took on the more old-fashioned naming conventions by calling themselves the "Permanent Revolution Tendency".

Leftist trainspotters call themselves spottards. Poser.

:laugh:

sks

[KurtFF8]

One view of this of course could be that the state of the Left tends to be quite weak in places like Europe and North America, but a fifth intentional could help give more potential for a rebuilding of the movement itself. It wouldn't automatically follow of course but it would give a nice venue for building.

I mean even in the US there's so little inter-communication between leftist organizations, so something like this could encourage more dialogue.

[GPDP]

Does it honestly matter whether Chavez calls for the Fifth, the revival of the Fourth, or the 65th and a third, twice removed International?

We need unity more than ever, and all this sectarian shit-slinging is not helping to move us along. And if unity means supporting a new International, regardless of which tradition it draws upon, then so be it.

[KurtFF8]

Exactly, even if the main tendency were something that I wasn't 100% on board with, I would still at least critically support it and try to participate if I were able to.

[Hit The North]

Does it honestly matter whether Chavez calls for the Fifth, the revival of the Fourth, or the 65th and a third, twice removed International?

We need unity more than ever, and all this sectarian shit-slinging is not helping to move us along. And if unity means supporting a new International, regardless of which tradition it draws upon, then so be it.

But it won't produce unity, except as a formal, documented aspiration between signatories of dubious representation.

An international need a movement to organise. Without such a movement an international is stillborn. Where is the movement?

[Rusty Shackleford]

But it won't produce unity, except as a formal, documented aspiration between signatories of dubious representation.

An international need a movement to organise. Without such a movement an international is stillborn. Where is the movement?


isnt the movement located for the most part in latin america?

[Dante]

League for the Fifth International's response to Chavez's call
http://www.fifthinternational.org/content/venezuelas-president-hugo-chavez-calls-fifth-international

[chebol]

This article, written by one of the delegates, gives a useful summary of what the project is about:


Venezuela: Chavez’s historic call for international socialist unity

http://www.greenleft.org.au/2009/820/42139
Federico Fuentes, Caracas
27 November 2009

Addressing delegates at the International Encounter of Left Parties held in Caracas, November 19-21, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said that with the capitalist crisis and threat of war risking the future of humanity, “the people are clamoring” for greater unity of those willing to fight for socialism.

Chavez used his speech on November 20 to the conference, which involved delegates from 55 left groups from 31 countries, to call for a new international socialist organisation to unite left groups and social movements.

“The time has come for us to organise the Fifth International”, he said.

Historic

This call is historic. It follows Chavez’s call in 2005 that the only response to the barbarism of the capitalist system was to create “a new socialism of the 21st century”.

In 2006, Chavez made the historic call for the creation in Venezuela of a new, mass revolutionary party in order to unite all who were part of the struggle to transform Venezuela into one party. This lead to the launch in 2007 of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV)

The call for a new international is historic because of Chavez’s authority: the head of a government leading a revolutionary movement to build socialism.

And it is a revolution that sees itself as international. Chavez has repeatedly said either socialism is built globally or there will be no 22nd century for humanity.

The call for a new international organisation builds on the history of the socialist movement.

There have been four previous socialist “internationals”, the first created by Karl Marx in 1864, which collapsed. The Second International was formed in 1889, but fell apart when representative parties sided with their own governments in the bloodshed of World War I.

The Third International was founded in the aftermath of the Russian Revolution. However, Chavez said it “degenerated” under Stalinism and “betrayed” struggles for socialism around the world.

Leon Trotsky founded the Fourth International in 1938. However, Trotsky died in 1940 and his followers never succeeded in building mass support.

A majority of delegates at the Caracas conference adopted a special resolution in support of founding the “Fifth Socialist International as a space for socialist-oriented parties, movements and currents in which we can harmonise a common strategy for the struggle against imperialism, the overthrow of capitalism by socialism”.

April next year has been set as the date for a conference to launch the new international.

Chavez repeated his call in his speech the next day to the congress of the PSUV, which began on on November 21. He asked the congress “to include in its agenda for debate, the proposal to convene political parties and currents to create the Fifth Socialist International as a new organisation that fits the time and the challenge in which we live, and that can become an instrument of unification and coordination of the struggle of peoples to save this planet”.

Chavez said the discussion “must go out to the people, to the social organisations and other forms of popular power in the country”.

The PSUV, a mass revolutionary party in formation, will no doubt take up this discussion with full vigour. Likewise, left parties around the world will need to take a position on this extremely important proposal with the potential to significantly advance the international socialist movement.

Unity against imperialism

The Encounter of Left Parties conference involved representatives of the old and new left. It included a number of old communist and social democratic parties from Asia and Europe, national liberation forces from Africa and the Middle East, and new left parties such as Die Linke (Germany), Left Bloc (Portugal) and Left Party (France).

It involved radical and left groups from across Latin America. Some of these are older, such as the Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN) from Nicaragua, and some newer, such as the Movement Towards Socialism (MAS) from Bolivia and the PSUV.

The first day discussed the new imperialist offensive in the region. This is exemplified by the plan for new US military bases in Latin America and the military coup against the left-leaning Honduran government, which was in alliance with revolutionary Venezuela.

Venezuelan foreign minister and PSUV leader Nicolas Maduro said that imperialism managed to destroy almost all attempts to create a new model of society in the 20th century.

“There was only one experience that had the sufficient political, military and popular force, together with a revolutionary leadership, which was able to overcome all of imperialism’s plans: the Cuban Revolution.”

Maduro said new revolutionary movements and political leaderships have emerged this century, changing the face of the region.

The election of US President Barack Obama created hope and expectations across the world that new relations with the US based on dialogue would be possible. But he said this illusion was quickly shattered by the actions of the new administration.

Maduro said the US government sought to undermine the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas (ALBA), an anti-imperialist political and trading bloc that this year expanded to nine countries.

The coup in Honduras, a member country, was aimed at ALBA and carried out with US support, he said.

Shortly afterwards there was the US-Colombia military agreement for seven new US military bases in Colombia, “a powerful threat against the revolutionary movements in our continent”.

In light of this, Maduro said unity of progressive and left forces is necessary to create a movement for peace and justice with the power to make Latin America a “territory free of US bases”.

Jorge Marti, head of the international relations department of the Communist Party of Cuba, said today, “the left is not up to the challenge it faces”. He said this was why it was necessary to develop a strategy for united struggle.

Nidia Diaz, a veteran leader of the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FMLN) of El Salvador, said it was possible right-wing forces could win coming elections in Chile and Brazil. But, she said, “if we only think about electoral victories and not in the accumulation of social forces for change, it is easy to paint a negative picture”.

She said it is essential that the left promoted Chavez’s proposal for “peace bases” as focal points for agitation and mobilisation of the people.
.
Patricia Rodas, the legitimate Honduran foreign minister in the government of President Manuel Zelaya overthrown in the coup, said: “We are merely spokespeople for our people who today are resisting.”

She said it was the responsibility of those at the meeting to build a common space for left groups to unite “and make possible the creation of a never-before-seen, diverse force”.

Venezuelan education minister Hector Navarro said: “The problem [we face] is the structural crisis of capital … We are confronting the question of the survival of humanity.”

Therefore, he said, the conference must be seen as a theatre of operations from which to unleash a struggle in defense of humanity.

‘International of the 21st century’

The second day started with a discussion on what sort of international coordination of the left was needed.

Valtar Pomar, international relations secretary of the Brazilian Workers’ Party (PT), outlined the position of his party, currently in government. He put forward a strategy focused on unity around regional integration and a broad-based “anti-imperialism”.

He said if socialism became our lowest common denominator for unity, this would inevitably lead to division. Pomar said the PT would prioratise the Sao Paulo Forum (FSP).

The FSP was formed in the 1990s as an initiative of the PT to regroup the Latin American left after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The FSP, like the PT, has drifted from its radical roots and become dominated by more moderate forces.

However, PSUV leader Aristobulo Isturiz said the left needs more dynamic and active spaces than the FSP.

Chavez’s speech that might marked a dividing line: “Yankee imperialism is preparing a war in Latin America … it has almost always been the case that the US has pulled itself out of a situation of crisis via war.”

The conditions to build socialism are ripe, he said.

“That is why I ask that you allow me continue to go forward, together with those who want to accompany me, to create the Fifth Socialist International.”

Chavez said it would be a new body without manuals and impositions, where differences were welcome.

He criticised the practices of the old Communist Party of the Soviet Union, which imposed its dogmas such as “socialism in one country” on its satellite parties internationally.

Chavez said this led many Latin American CPs to turn their backs on Argentinean-born revolutionary Ernesto “Che” Guevara, when Che, who rejected Soviet dogmatism, tried to spread the Cuban Revolution in the 1960s.

Chavez said the new international should reject the failed projects of “real socialism” and social democracy. It should embody the spirit and heritage left to humanity by the founders of the first four internationals. It should also incorporate the ideas of past Latin American revolutionaries.

It has to be an international to confront imperialism and defeat capitalism, said Chavez.

He said it was also necessary to work together to create a manifesto to spell out the content of “socialism of the 21st century”.

Chavez gave a swift and sharp response to a delegate’s interjection that there already exist organisations for left coordination. There exist many spaces for discussion, said Chavez, but none for concrete action.

“We have wasted a lot of time, we continue to waste time, looking for excuses to justify our inactivity”, Chavez said. “I consider such behavior to be a betrayal of the hope of our peoples.”

The unity of left parties is needed, “but parties that are truly left”.

Some delegates expressed their reservations the following day, arguing that at such a meeting it was only possible to agree on specific points. A deep programmatic debate was necessary before any deeper unity was possible.

However, support for the proposal was very strong overall.

Speaking in favour of the proposal, El Salvadorean Vice-President and FMLN leader Salvador Sanchez Ceren said: “We cannot continue simply debating … we need to clearly define what it is that we want, and the alternative project for Latin America is socialism.”

Sanchez’s comments provoked a reaction from El Salvadorean President Mauricio Funes, who was elected with the FMLN’s support. Funes distanced himself from the comments and said his government did not support 21st century socialism.

The delegation from the Movement Towards Socialism (MAS) in Bolivia told the conference they had contacted the MAS leadership, including Bolivian President Evo Morales, who agreed the MAS should back the new international.

Ecuadorian minister of government and Country Alliance leader, Ricardo Patino, said his party had also agreed to participate.

Rodas pledged the active support of the Honduran “resistance” for the proposal.

The Cuban Communist Party (PCC) did not express a formal position in the meeting.

If the PCC backs the call, it would mean all the most important organisations at the head of the Latin American revolution expressed their will to create the new international.

The adopted resolution pledged to create a “working group comprised of those socialist parties, currents and social movements who endorse the initiative, to prepare an agenda which defines the objectives, contents and mechanisms of this global revolutionary body”.

A main document, called the Caracas Commitment, was also approved.

The document said that faced with “structural crisis of capital, which combines the economic crisis, with an ecological crisis, a food crisis, and an energy crisis, and which together represents a mortal threat to humanity and mother earth”, the only alternative possible is “socialism of the 21st century”.

Speaking to the PSUV Congress, Chavez said the previous four socialist internationals had originated in Europe, “where the thesis of scientific socialism emerged with force in the heat of the great popular workers struggles”.

Today, however, “the epicentre of revolutionary struggle is in our America. And Venezuela is the epicenter of this battle.

“It is up to us to assume the role of the vanguard and we have to assume it, so that we realize and become aware of the huge responsibility we have on our shoulders.”

[Federico Fuentes and Kiraz Janicke represented the Socialist Alliance at the International Encounter of Left Parties. They also work in the Caracas bureau of Green Left Weekly.]

[pranabjyoti]

The problem with Venezuela so far, in my opinion, most of the websites, from where maximum information can be gathered, are in Spanish or Portuguese. English or other international language versions are not available. I think the Venezuelan authority and PSUV should think of this issue seriously. Otherwise, their reach will be limited only to Spanish and Portuguese speaking people around the world and their enemies will have greater opportunity to spread rumors around the world.

[rararoadrunner]

Camaradas muuuuuuuuuuuuy estimadas:

Here is a position submitted by the League for the Fifth International, together with my response: I invite you to join in this important dialogue.


Comrades of the League for the Fifth International:

Thank you so much for the prompt and thoughtful response: let me respond to your analysis of Hugo Chavez, as given below:


For the record we do not think of him as a "national socialist" or potential
> fascist. He is a left wing bonaparte (using the category from Marx's
> writings) who rules over a capitalist state but one in which the bourgeois
> class has lost a certain degree of power to rule. His mass base is amongst
> the poor urban workers and the peasants. Therefore he responds to this mass
> pressure with a series of reforms and projects which have a social
> democratic nature. However he is not a revolutionary and has no strategy to
> bring socialism to Venezuela.1) If we look up Marx' main writing on "Bonapartism," "The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis (Napoleon) Bonaparte" (1852) (this is the one with the juicy quote "Hegel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Wilhelm_Friedrich_Hegel) remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce") we see how Bonapartism, rather than abolishing class differences, sought to transcend them via the State: hence it has been remarked that Marx shows how Bonapartism foreshadowed Fascism, was indeed a foretaste of Fascism.

Hence, doesn't your category of "left wing Bonaparte" actually reinforce the argument that Chavez is on a Fascist rather than Socialist trajectory?

Also: if we see, not only "National Socialism," but also "Socialism In One Country," as Fascist rather than Socialist movements, yet agree that the October Revolution was Socialist in character, can we predict that even genuine Socialist movements can be diverted to Fascist paths?

Perhaps Hugo Chavez himself is aware of this danger...which is why he seeks to convene a V International.

2) Chavez also seems to me aware of the danger that his movement will fall into social democratic reformism rather than follow a genuine Socialist path: wasn't this among the roots of his self-criticism, first voiced at the 2005 World Social Forum, that he had wasted almost his entire first Presidential term not following a Socialist path?

Also: Chavez' conception of revolution seems strange, yet of interest: rather than overthrow, he seems to believe that political and economic competition will produce Socialism.

This presupposes, in my view, that capitalists will limit their struggle to maintain their class rule to a peaceful, legal struggle: something we saw disproved yet again in Honduras.

If the Consejos Comunales, Consejos Obreros, Comunas, etc. are as successful economically as the PSUV is politically, why should the capitalists not engineer either the overthrow of the Venezuelan government or the invasion of Venezuela? Once again, it seems to me that Chavez is aware of the danger that he might become the next Salvador Allende...which is another reason to call for a V International.

Thank you once again for your response: I will pass it on to the fora in which I participate, as well as to the Peace and Freedom Party, for their consideration.

Perhaps the V International can succeed in helping President Hugo Chavez Frias, the PSUV, and the Venezuelan people to navigate between the twin shoals of Fascist Bonapartism and Social Democratic reformism.

Hasta pronto, y a la victoria, siempre, MKO.



> Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 12:36:01 +0000
> Subject: Re: [Contact the League for the Fifth International] PFP Central Committee member consulting with you on PSUV proposal for a Fifth International
> From: [email protected]
> To: [email protected]
>
> > Matthew Owen sent a message using the contact form at
> > http://www.fifthinternational.org/contact.
> >
> >
Comrades:
> >
> > Recently, I've read that President Hugo Chavez Frias of Venezuela has
> > proposed founding a Fifth International: I would like to know, both on my own
> > behalf, and on that of the US Peace and Freedom Party, what you, who have
> > been advocating for a Fifth International, think of President Chavez'
> > proposal.
> >
> > My impression from your articles is that you've written President Chavez off
> > (does this extend to the PSUV, Consejos Comunales/Comunas, etc.?) as a
> > national-socialist (i.e. potential fascist) rather than a socialist
> > internationalist: let me offer that "calling his bluff," as it were, of
> > taking up your banner might put him to the test. What do you think? Should
> > the PFP, or any other socialist party for that matter, take President Chavez'
> > proposal seriously...or with tons of salt? Please note that several Latin
> > American parties that consider themselves socialist have signed on to this
> > proposal...and that President Chavez is specifically seeking out US parties.
> >
> > On behalf of workers everywhere, and of the Peace and Freedom Party, yours,
> > in solidarity, Mateo Owen.>
>
>
> Dear Mateo,
>
> Thank you for the email. Yes indeed the call of Chavez is an important
> development. Despite the fact that we have misgivings and concerns about
> what kind of politics this new international will have, Chavez clearly
> responds to a very real and urgent need felt by people across the world. We
> have put a response to his call on our international website.
>
> For the record we do not think of him as a "national socialist" or potential
> fascist. He is a left wing bonaparte (using the category from Marx's
> writings) who rules over a capitalist state but one in which the bourgeois
> class has lost a certain degree of power to rule. His mass base is amongst
> the poor urban workers and the peasants. Therefore he responds to this mass
> pressure with a series of reforms and projects which have a social
> democratic nature. However he is not a revolutionary and has no strategy to
> bring socialism to Venezuela.
>
> The key strategic question is how will a new international look if it is
> effectively run from the state offices in Caracas? Therefore there must be a
> fight within any new body for class independence and a clear revolutionary
> strategy.
>
> Our advice at this stage would be to go to the conference next year and
> fight for such a perspective, we will certainly endeavour to be there! We
> would very much like to maintain correspondence on this issue.
>
> Comradely,
> Simon Hardy

[Die Neue Zeit]

Here I am in my aloof and reserved self, having stated my position before on social corporatism, and now I read raw, Third-Period Stalinist politics coming from the League for the Fifth International ("twin shoals of Fascist Bonapartism and Social Democratic reformism")? :rolleyes:

Why don't they just come out of the cold and call Chavez a "social-fascist"? [He's a social-corporatist like every other soc-dem, but the modern connotation of "fascist" is too much about the identity politics of racism and not so much about forced class conciliation.]

P.S. - For anybody who actually reads Marx's work on Louis Bonaparte, this is the first critical account of the ascent of something called "Social-Democracy" as a means to reconcile class antagonisms between the proletariat and petit-bourgeoisie.

[A.R.Amistad]

I would agree with that (a V International), but looking back at history, new Internationals aren't just pulled out of the blue and created randomly. They have some sort of historical symbol to rally behind, which gives them purpose. The October Revolution was the symbol for the formation of the Third International and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact along with Stalin's purges were the catalyst for the creation of the Fourth International. So far, there hasn't been an event as symbolic or pivotal to the international proletariat, so the formation of a new international is ill placed in time by Chavez. Also, the left is not at all ready to cooperate in an international, no matter what the tendency, because every tendency as of now is rife with tension. We need to continue revolutionary united front tactics and revolutionary leadership where we can, and that can build up to something happening that is worthy of creating a fifth international for.

[rararoadrunner]

Here I am in my aloof and reserved self, having stated my position before on social corporatism, and now I read raw, Third-Period Stalinist politics coming from the League for the Fifth International ("twin shoals of Fascist Bonapartism and Social Democratic reformism")? :rolleyes:

Why don't they just come out of the cold and call Chavez a "social-fascist"? [He's a social-corporatist like every other soc-dem, but "fascist" is too much about the identity politics of racism and not so much about forced class conciliation.]

P.S. - For anybody who actually reads Marx's work on Louis Bonaparte, this is the first critical account of the ascent of something called "Social-Democracy" as a means to reconcile class antagonisms between the proletariat and petit-bourgeoisie.

Comrade:

My thanks for bringing up Stalin's conflation of Fascism and Social Democracy via "Social-Fascism:" while it is true that both Social-Democracy and Fascism seek to use the State to transcend rather than abolish socioeconomic classes, there are important distinctions this leaves out:

1) Social-Democrats believe that theirs is a realistic, evolutionary path to socialism, and retain their belief in socialist internationalism: Fascists, if they use the term "Socialism" at all, always qualify it as "National," "In One Country," etc.: hence, they are antiinternationalist.

2) Social Democrats trust in competitive elections: Fascists trust elections, too...but only if they're the only ones in the running.

In short, we have, on the one hand, Social-Democratic reformists...and, on the other hand, Fascist radical reactionaries. The only thing they have in common is the belief that the State can transcend class differences without abolishing them.

Hope this helps, and again my thanks for bringing up the Stalinist "Social-Fascist" formulation: this is why I used the the analogy of "twin shoals" (by the way, that formulation is mine, not that of the League for the Fifth International: if they adopt it, I'm honoured; if it is in error...the error is mine, not theirs (unless both are true, in which case they would adopt an erroneous formulation of mine: oops!)

Hasta ptonto, y a la victoria, siempre, MKO.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I prefer social corporatism myself. Corporatism is the mainstream political ideology today, and has three flavours: the fascist variety, the conservative-liberal-progressive variety, and the "social-democratic" variety. All of the third and part of the second is social-corporatist.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/classical-economic-rent-t103272/index.html

[rararoadrunner]

http://www.fifthinternational.org/sites/all/themes/framework/logo.png
Published on League for the Fifth International (http://www.fifthinternational.org (http://www.fifthinternational.org/))

Home (http://www.fifthinternational.org/) > Analysis by Country (http://www.fifthinternational.org/category/1) > Americas (http://www.fifthinternational.org/category/1/56) > Venezuela (http://www.fifthinternational.org/category/1/56/90) > Venezuela’s President Hugo Chávez calls for Fifth International
Venezuela’s President Hugo Chávez calls for Fifth International

By Simon
Created 25/11/2009 - 17:17
http://www.fifthinternational.org/sites/default/files/Images/Hugo_chavez.pngPresident Hugo Chávez has called for a Fifth International at a mass meeting in Caracas. This is a statement from the International Secretariat of the League for the Fifth International about this new development.
En español (http://www.fifthinternational.org/http://www.fifthinternational.org/content/el-presidente-venezolano-hugo-chavez-llama-por-una-quinta-internacional) [1] 中文 (http://www.fifthinternational.org/http://www.fifthinternational.org/content/chavez-fifth-international-chinese) [1]
Venezuela's President Hugo Chávez has announced that he intends to take steps to form a Fifth International. The proposal was greeted by a standing ovation from delegates from 39 countries attending an 'International Meeting of Parties of the Left' in Caracas on November 20. They also signed a common declaration called the Caracas Agreement (El Compromiso de Caracas).
The League for the Fifth International has argued for many years that the assaults on the social and economic gains of the workers, carried out by the capitalist class under the banner of Globalisation, Neoliberalism and the War on Terrorism, urgently required an internationally coordinated fight back. In the many international forums of the anticapitalist and antiwar movements that have been held over the last ten years, we have proposed concrete steps to found a new global party of socialist revolution, a Fifth International.
Many of the groups that consider themselves followers of Leon Trotsky and V.I. Lenin responded by arguing that the call for a new International was utopian. They said the time was not ripe, it was “too soon”, or “too advanced” because there were no forces willing even to consider such a step. Maybe Chávez’ initiative will wake up such people – even though the world crisis of 2008-09 has not. Indeed, it is truly a scandal for organisations that call themselves anti-capitalist, be they of “Trotskyist”, “Maoist” or “Communist” origin, that it has to be Hugo Chávez who makes this call. It demonstrates clearly the extent to which the “far left” has failed to address the needs of the day clearly and courageously.
Revolutionaries however cannot agree to entrust the initiative of founding a new workers’ international to the head of a bourgeois state, that is, a state that defends capitalist ownership of the means of production and enforces this by a standing army and police force against the workers and poor of Venezuela. Of course, Chávez has clashed repeatedly with US imperialism and has, under mass pressure, carried out important reforms for the popular classes in terms of healthcare and education. But, as he himself admitted in the very speech in which called for the Fifth International, Venezuela remains a capitalist country and the state machine a capitalist one. This is a vital question, no matter many times Chávez has clashed with the USA, its Latin American puppet Colombia’s Alavaro Uribe, and the business and landowning élite within Venezuela.
An International tied to such a state would not be a working class International committed to the socialist revolution, but one run by bourgeois nationalists merely dressed up as socialists. If it were to be founded under the aegis of Chávez and his bourgeois regime, then it would never be able to chart a course of class independence. It would become a glorified support mechanism for Chávez, Castro and his other allies. Indeed, it might even include such overtly pro-imperialist enemies of the working class as the Mexican PRI or the Argentinian Peronists (who also figured in Chávez’ convention of “left” parties). It should not be forgotten that Chávez recently supported and solidarised with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s brutal repression of the workers, women and youth of Iran who were fighting for democratic rights and with Robert Mugabe’s prolonged attempts to do the same in Zimbabwe.
In the twenty first century, an era of a severe, indeed a historic, crisis of capitalism, strategic alliances with the “progressive” or “anti-imperialist” or national bourgeoisies, not to speak of a common International of workers and such bourgeois nationalists, would tie the working class hand and foot to a section of capital. It would block the road to the socialist revolution and a programme of working class power. It would repeat the errors and crimes of the Communist International under Stalin. Tying the international to the foreign policy of any particular state, even a workers’ state, is no healthy basis for an International.
Nonetheless, despite the bourgeois class character of Chávez’ project, the Venezuelan president addressed a real need. A need felt by millions of workers, peasants and poor struggling against capitalist exploitation and imperialist rule. In order to repel the bosses’ offensives, in order to prevent the governments making the workers pay for the crisis and also to prevent reactionary nationalist “solutions” to it, the working class does indeed need a new, fighting, revolutionary International. It is vital to respond positively to this need.
Thus to reply to Chávez’ call simply with negative criticism, principled as this might be, would be to ignore the burning issue. The working class and the impoverished masses of the world do need an International and they need it NOW. They need it to repulse the attempts to make them pay the costs of the crisis. They need it to bring an end to the series of imperialist wars of conquest and occupation. They need it to bring succour to the oppressed nationalities like the Palestinians and the Sri Lankan Tamils.
The working class and the oppressed of the whole world are threatened by a period of deepening chaos for the capitalist system. They face massive environmental destruction and new conflicts between the major powers as they try to re-divide the natural resources and the exploitable labour of the world, conflicts that can only end in a new world war. They need a global party of socialist revolution, independent of all states and their rulers.
Therefore it is the duty of all who consider themselves anticapitalist, like the NPA in France, all who call themselves revolutionary socialists, communists, Leninists and Trotskyists, to combine forces and to convene a conference of their organisations. Such a conference must discuss an action programme for coordinating our defensive struggles, transforming them into a revolutionary counter-attack against imperialism and capitalism. And it must discuss the types of organisation needed to fight for such a programme.
The League for the Fifth International, which will, if it is able, intervene in Chávez’s gathering in 2010, calls on all who support the struggle for a new International based on proletarian class independence and a new revolutionary programme, (whatever name or number they presently give to it) to join forces with us in 2010 to take real steps in this direction.



News (http://www.fifthinternational.org/content/type/news)
Venezuela (http://www.fifthinternational.org/content/analysis-country/americas/venezuela)


Source URL: http://www.fifthinternational.org/content/venezuelas-president-hugo-chavez-calls-fifth-international
Links:
[1] http://www.fifthinternational.org/http

[Dante]

Hi

the L5I does not characterise Chavez as a social fascist. You can be a bonapartist and not a fascist. We take the characterisation Left Bonaparte from Trotsky, who bases it on Marx.

[Die Neue Zeit]

That's because Chavez isn't a racist. ;)

Make no mistake, though: he is as much a social-corporatist as Gordon Brown is. IIRC, there's a constitutional law in Venezuela that prohibits the formation of "workers' parties" or even "labour parties" - something about prohibition based on social distinctions or something.

[KurtFF8]

Even though the ruling party is a worker's party?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Well, only time will tell.

As said in this thread, the fruits of the revolution are a long time in the waiting. Latin America really is vital for Socialism at this point, we must look to Venezuela, and Chavez, to lead the new generation of Socialists. I'd like to see some more engagement between Cuba and Venezuela. The theoretical ideas behind Cuba's political system are something that Chavez should look towards if he wants to advance the pace of the revolution - despite a wave of nationalisations, as it has been said many times in this thread, the pace of the revolution has not been particularly quick, because Chavez has left in place many bourgeois political institutions.

[Hit The North]

That's because Chavez isn't a racist. ;)

Make no mistake, though: he is as much a social-corporatist as Gordon Brown is.

That wouldn't make Chavez much of a social-corporatist then.


IIRC, there's a constitutional law in Venezuela that prohibits the formation of "workers' parties" or even "labour parties" - something about prohibition based on social distinctions or something.

Is this true?

[LeninistKing]

I support Chavez 100%. Chavez is not even human, he is a saint. The ultra-leftists who hate Chavez like the International Communist Current are just a bunch of losers, and full of envy, greed and sectarianism !!

.

[Die Neue Zeit]

That wouldn't make Chavez much of a social-corporatist then.

At least you agree with me on the partial rehabilitation of the concept, and of the real history of corporatism. :) This term is more "spread"-able than the old "social fascism," anyway.


Is this true?

If someone can help me with citations from the Venezuela constitution or law on political parties, that would be appreciated. I'm very sure I read it in an article somewhere on Chirino organizing a separate political party.

[Artemis3]

If someone can help me with citations from the Venezuela constitution or law on political parties, that would be appreciated. I'm very sure I read it in an article somewhere on Chirino organizing a separate political party.

AFAIK that is not true, but there could be some blurb in some oscure law or something.

Here is the text:

Bolivarian Constitution



NON-OFFICIAL TRANSLATION


http://www.embavenez-us.org/good_news/index.1.jpg
Title I: FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES (http://www.embavenez-us.org/constitution/constitution_titleI.htm)
Title II: GEOGRAPHICAL SPACES AND POLITICAL DIVISION (http://www.embavenez-us.org/constitution/title_II.htm)
Title III: DUTIES, HUMAN RIGHTS AND GUARANTEES (http://www.embavenez-us.org/constitution/title_III.htm)
Title IV: PUBLIC POWER (http://www.embavenez-us.org/constitution/title_iv.htm)
Title V: ORGANIZATION OF NATIONAL PUBLIC AUTHORITY (http://www.embavenez-us.org/constitution/title_v.htm)
Title VI: SOCIOECONOMIC SYSTEM (http://www.embavenez-us.org/constitution/title_vi.htm)
Title VII: NATIONAL SECURITY (http://www.embavenez-us.org/constitution/title_VII.htm)
Title VIII: PROTECTION OF THE CONSTITUTION (http://www.embavenez-us.org/constitution/title_VIII.htm)
Title IX: CONSTITUTIONAL REFORMS (http://www.embavenez-us.org/constitution/title_IX.htm)

[rararoadrunner]

Hi

the L5I does not characterise Chavez as a social fascist. You can be a bonapartist and not a fascist. We take the characterisation Left Bonaparte from Trotsky, who bases it on Marx.

Comrade:

Good to see someone representing the L5I's position here: good place to begin dialogue!

Two problems we need to analyse here:

1) While the category "Bonapartism" is indeed taken from Marx' works, especially Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, we must be mindful that the term Fascism wasn't invented until it was coined by Benito Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile: as such, Marx' analysis of Bonapartism is often cited as his chief work on Fascism...and, in turn, Trotsky's revisiting the category in analysing "Left Bonapartism" foreshadowed the trajectory of "Socialism in One Country" in a Fascist rather than Socialist direction: not of its origins, but rather in its destination.

2) Corporatism: the chief explanation that the original Fascists offered on how they would transcend, rather than abolish, class distinctions. Each class would have its role defined by the Fascist Party, enabling (supposedly) "the trains to run on time," so to speak (Oddly enough, we saw this notion reproduced both in the GDR as an explanation of the role of different political parties there, and in the PRC to this day...which is why a remnant of the KMT, totally divorced from its Taiwan namesake, still exists there).

Comrades, I think we need to keep constantly in view, both the organic connection between Marx' concept of Bonapartism and the later Fascism, on the one hand, and the even more organic growth of the concept of Corporatism from its Fascists roots whenever we do this analysis, lest we fail to apply Occam's Razor to keep our dialectical thinking from getting fuzzy.

Moreover, I would argue that there is a profound struggle between the forces of Fascism and Socialism going on in Venezuela, both within the person of President Hugo Chavez Frias, and within the PSUV: if we let either Hugo Chavez' thinking, or that of the PSUV, be shaped merely by their opposition, both domestic and international, they will be pushed in a Fascist direction, given the implacable nature of both sets of opponents.

Comrades, now's the time to answer the call to help take the 21st Century Socialist movement which began in Venezuela beyond Venezuela, indeed beyond Latin America, by contributing to the founding of the V International: it isn't yet what the League for the Fifth International called for...but it might yet be, if your League, and other Socialist internationalists, are a strong force at the V International's founding Congress.

Crucial, in my view, is to strengthen the Consejos Comunales, Comunas, etc.: I believe that these have the potential to become Venezuelan Soviets, the Congress of which needs urgently to be prepared to take power in Venezuela, opening the door to similar such truly revolutionary movements in Latin America and elsewhere. What do you think?

Once again, Comrade, my thanks for your participation here: I hope that my effort to help develop revolution as a profession here ain't totally in vain.

Hasta pronto, y a la victoria, siempre, MKO.

[rararoadrunner]

It seems that the idea of a V International, linked with a socialist revolution in Mexico, is beginning to catch on there: I submit the following video for your consideration:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4KR7vv-0Oo

It will be interesting to see who in Mexico dares to step forth to call for socialism there! (Quite a few have actually, so who will dare to issue the call from within a V International?)

Hasta pronto, y a la victoria, siempre, MKO.

[KurtFF8]

That would be nice, but I'm not too sure how much the idea of socialist revolution is picking up in Mexico. (I really just don't know, but I haven't heard much)

[ellipsis]

I would be interested to see what would come of a true fifth international. Hopefully it would attract many true socialist/anti-capitalist movements from as many areas as possible. If then we could all try to get more on the same page, develop areal strategy
, we might be in business.

[pranabjyoti]

Let's stop all kind of discussion here and if the fifth International will form, which way it will go. And to the supporters of Fifth International like Artemis3, please tell us what we can do for the Fifth International.

[rararoadrunner]

Camaradas muuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuy estimadas:

My new avatar is my proposed logo for the V Socialist International: it combines the colours common to the symbols of all four previous internationals: it emphasises the common red socialist star; and, of course, it has the V prominently displayed.

Simple, direct, and to the pt.

PS: I'm having cataract surgery on the 12th April: the very day of the 2002 coup attempt. If I wasn't on my wife's insurance...I might as well be in North Korea (Where they had one foreign surgeon perform something like 1000 cataract removals in a matter of days! Given the availability of cataract surgery in Cuba and Venezuela...why couldn't someone from those countries also go to the DPRK, which totally lacks such surgeons? Why not invite the North Koreans to send people to Venezuela and Cuba for cataract surgeries? Are the North Koreans that paranoid!? Do they think that they alone possess the unique truth about socialism? Hmmmm...)

Anyway, as soon as I recover, I plan to host screenings of "The Revolution Won't Be Televised" and "No Volveran: Venezuelan Revolution Now" with good intermission material: hopefully, these will build support for the V Socialist International here.

[Wolf Larson]

He's surrounded by US troops in Columbia and other School of The America's shit bags. He also has a bourgeois population trying to get him out of power with the help of the US. If the US didn't exist or at least stayed out of their affairs it would be a socialist nation.

Our governments policy of containment is still in full effect and they still see South America as their back yard to be protected from true socialism [worker control] at all costs.

[Charles Xavier]

blank

[pranabjyoti]

Actually, in my opinion, Chavez should get out of his latinocentric policy and search for support from real revolutionary people worldwide. I myself can not admit his support to the fascist Rajapakshe regime of SriLanka and his closeness with worst kind of revisionary parties like CPC, CPI and CPI(M). Real struggling people worldwide can get wrong message from this kind of activities.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Actually, in my opinion, Chavez should get out of his latinocentric policy and search for support from real revolutionary people worldwide. I myself can not admit his support to the fascist Rajapakshe regime of SriLanka and his closeness with worst kind of revisionary parties like CPC, CPI and CPI(M). Real struggling people worldwide can get wrong message from this kind of activities.

You're calling the CPI(M) revisionist? I hope that (M) means marxist, because they're the revisionist communists located in India, despite the fact that I'm a Marxist myself. The Maoists are a true leading force within India, & to consider them as revisionist is quite concerning.

[RadioRaheem84]

Actually, in my opinion, Chavez should get out of his latinocentric policy and search for support from real revolutionary people worldwide. I myself can not admit his support to the fascist Rajapakshe regime of SriLanka and his closeness with worst kind of revisionary parties like CPC, CPI and CPI(M). Real struggling people worldwide can get wrong message from this kind of activities.

I agree that Chavez needs to stop shaking hands with revisionists and theocrats. I guess the list of allies must be really small but he could at least make an attempt to support the Indian Maoists and the Nepalese CPN(M).

[pranabjyoti]

You're calling the CPI(M) revisionist? I hope that (M) means marxist, because they're the revisionist communists located in India, despite the fact that I'm a Marxist myself. The Maoists are a true leading force within India, & to consider them as revisionist is quite concerning.
The CPI(Maoist) is commonly known as just Maoists in India. By CPI(M), almost everybody in India can understand CPI(Marxist) and the related parliamentary COMMUNIST(!) parties. Actually I just hate to put their full name, because in that case names of our great ancestors would be associated with this kind of rotten pieces.

[Saorsa]

The Indian Maoists tend to call the CPI (Marxist) the CPM, to differentiate it from the CPI (Maoist) or CPI (M).

Ugh so many acronyms

[RED DAVE]

I agree that Chavez needs to stop shaking hands with revisionists and theocrats. I guess the list of allies must be really small but he could at least make an attempt to support the Indian Maoists and the Nepalese CPN(M).The fact that he doesn't tells you pretty much all you want to know about his pretenses to building an International. He's, at best, a supporter of petit-bougeois democracy. Hardly the basis for a workers international.

RED DAVE

[RadioRaheem84]

The fact that he doesn't tells you pretty much all you want to know about his pretenses to building an International. He's, at best, a supporter of petit-bougeois democracy. Hardly the basis for a workers international.

RED DAVE

I don't know about petit-bourgeoisie democracy per se, but he certainly has a strange view of socialism.

[Charles Xavier]

blank

[Guest1]

For the Fifth International! (http://www.marxist.com/for-the-fifth-international.htm)
Written by International Marxist Tendency
Wednesday, 17 March 2010

The call issued by President Chavez to set up a new revolutionary international, the Fifth International, has provoked a passionate discussion in the ranks of the workers’ movement in Latin America and on a world scale. It is impossible for Marxists to remain indifferent to this question. What attitude should we take towards it?

The first question that needs to be answered is: do we need an International? Marxism is internationalist, or it is nothing. Already at the dawn of our movement, in the pages of the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels wrote: “The workers have no country.”

The internationalism of Marx and Engels was not a caprice, or the result of sentimental considerations. It flowed from the fact that capitalism develops as a world system—out of the different national economies and markets there arises one single, indivisible and interdependent whole—the world market.

Today this prediction of the founders of Marxism has been brilliantly demonstrated, in almost laboratory fashion. The crushing domination of the world market is the most decisive fact of our epoch. Not a single country, no matter how big and powerful—not the USA, not China, not Russia—can stand apart from the mighty pull of the world market. This was, in fact, part of the reason for the collapse of the USSR.

The First and Second Internationals


http://www.marxist.com/images/thumbs/250x170-images-stories-history-marx-eng5.png (http://www.marxist.com/images/stories/history/marx-eng5.png)
Marx and Engels took part in the founding of the First International, which was an anticipation for the future.


The Communist League was, from the beginning, an international organisation. However, the formation of the International Workingman’s Association (the First International) in 1864 represented a qualitative step forward. The historical task of the First International was to establish the main principles, programme, strategy and tactics of revolutionary Marxism on a world scale. However, at its inception, the IWA was not a Marxist International, but an extremely heterogeneous organisation, composed of British reformist trade unionists, French Proudhonists, Italian followers of Mazzini, anarchists, and the like. By combining firmness on principles with great tactical flexibility, gradually Marx and Engels won over the majority.

The IWA succeeded in laying the theoretical foundations for a genuine revolutionary International. But it never was a real mass workers’ International. It was really an anticipation of the future. The Socialist International (Second International), launched in 1889, began where the First International had left off. Unlike the latter, the Second International began as a mass International which gathered and organised millions of workers. It had mass parties and trade unions in Germany, France, Britain, Belgium, etc. Moreover, it stood, at least in words, on the basis of revolutionary Marxism. The future of world socialism appeared to be guaranteed.

However, the misfortune of the Second International was to be formed during a long period of capitalist upswing. This set its stamp on the mentality of the leading layer of the Social Democratic parties and trade unions. The period of 1871-1914 was the classical period of Social Democracy. On the basis of a long period of economic growth, it was possible for capitalism to give concessions to the working class, or, more correctly, to its upper layer.

The formation of a numerous caste of trade union officials, Party bureaucrats and parliamentary careerists led to a process of degeneration, in which the bureaucracy increasingly divorced itself from the masses and the party rank-and-file. Gradually, almost imperceptibly, the revolutionary aims were lost sight of. The leaders became absorbed in the daily routine of parliamentary or trade union activity. Eventually, theories were found to justify this abandonment of principle.

This was the material basis for the national-reformist degeneration of the Second (Socialist) International, which was cruelly exposed in 1914, when the leaders of the International voted for the war credits and supported “their” bourgeoisie in the imperialist slaughter of the First World War.

The Third International


http://www.marxist.com/images/thumbs/250x183-images-stories-history-1919-Trotsky_Lenin_Kamenev-Party-Congress.jpg (http://www.marxist.com/images/stories/history/1919-Trotsky_Lenin_Kamenev-Party-Congress.jpg)
Lenin and Trotsky led the Third International before it degenerated.


The Third (Communist) International stood on a qualitatively higher level than either of its two predecessors. Like the IWA, at the high-point of its development, the Third International stood for a clear revolutionary, internationalist programme. Like the Second International, it had a mass base of millions. Once again, it appeared that the fate of the world revolution was in good hands.
Under the leadership of Lenin and Trotsky, the Communist International maintained a correct line. However, the isolation of the Russian Revolution under conditions of frightful material and cultural backwardness caused the bureaucratic degeneration of the Revolution. The bureaucratic faction led by Stalin gained the upper hand, especially after Lenin’s death in 1924.

Leon Trotsky and the Left Opposition attempted to defend the spotless traditions of October against Stalinist reaction—the Leninist traditions of workers’ democracy and proletarian internationalism. But they were fighting against the tide. The Russian workers were exhausted by years of war, revolution and Civil War. On the other hand, the bureaucracy felt increasingly confident, pushed the workers to one side and took over the Party.

With Lenin’s final illness and death, under Stalin and Bukharin, the bureaucracy steered a right-wing course, conciliating the kulaks and other capitalist elements within Russia, and striving for a bloc with the so-called progressive bourgeois elements in the colonial countries (Chiang Kai Shek in China) and the Labour bureaucracy in the West (the Anglo-Soviet Committee). This opportunist policy led to the bloody defeat of the Chinese revolution and the missing of an opportunity in Britain in 1926 and, more importantly, in Germany in 1923.

With every defeat of the international revolution, the Soviet workers were more disappointed and demoralised, and the bureaucracy and the Stalinist faction in the Party acquired new strength and confidence. After the defeat of Trotsky’s Left Opposition (1927), Stalin having burnt his fingers with the pro-Kulak policy broke with Bukharin and swung to an ultra-left position of forced collectivisation inside Russia and simultaneously foisted upon the International (the Comintern) the insane policy of the “Third Period”.

Trotsky and his followers, the Bolshevik-Leninists were expelled from the Communist Party and the International. Then they were slandered, persecuted, imprisoned and murdered. Stalin drew a line of blood between the bureaucracy that usurped and betrayed the October revolution and the Trotskyists who fought to defend the real ideas of Bolshevism-Leninism.

The International Left Opposition

The tremendous potential of the Third International was destroyed by the rise of Stalinism in Russia. The Stalinist degeneration of the Soviet Union played havoc with the still immature leaderships of the Communist Parties abroad. Whereas Lenin and Trotsky looked to the international workers’ revolution as the only safeguard for the future of the Russian revolution and the Soviet state, Stalin and his supporters were indifferent to the world revolution. The “theory” of socialism in one country expressed the national limitedness of the outlook of the bureaucracy, which looked on the Communist International merely as an instrument of the foreign policy of Moscow.

The worst result was in Germany. Trotsky called for a united front of Communist and Social Democratic workers to fight the Nazi menace. But the warnings of Trotsky to the members of the Communist Parties fell on deaf ears. The German working class was split down the middle. The insane policy of “social fascism” split and paralysed the powerful German labour movement, and allowed Hitler to come to power in 1933.

The defeat of the German working class in 1933, arising from the refusal of the Communist Party to offer a united front to the Social Democratic workers, was a turning-point. Trotsky drew the conclusion that an international which was incapable of reacting in the face of such a defeat, was dead and a new revolutionary international needed to be forged. History proved him right. In 1943, having been cynically used by Stalin as an instrument of Moscow’s foreign policy, the Communist International was ignominiously buried, without even calling a congress. The political and organisational heritage of Lenin was dealt a heavy blow for a whole historical period.

The Fourth International


http://www.marxist.com/images/thumbs/250x197-images-stories-trotsky.jpg (http://www.marxist.com/images/stories/trotsky.jpg)
Trotsky founded the Fourth International after the failures of the Third in many countries.


Under the most difficult conditions in exile, slandered by the Stalinists and persecuted by the GPU, Trotsky attempted to re-group the small forces that remained loyal to the traditions of Bolshevism and the October revolution. Unfortunately, in addition to the smallness of their forces, many of the adherents of the Opposition were confused and disoriented, and many mistakes were made, particularly of a sectarian character. This reflected in part the isolation of the Trotskyists from the mass movement. This sectarianism is present today in most of the groups that claim to represent Trotskyism, but have failed to grasp the most elementary ideas that Trotsky defended.

Trotsky launched the Fourth International in 1938 on the basis of a definite perspective. However, this perspective was falsified by history. The murder of Trotsky by one of Stalin’s assassins in 1940 struck a mortal blow against the movement. The other leaders of the Fourth International proved to be completely unequal to the tasks posed by history. They repeated the words of Trotsky without understanding Trotsky’s method. As a result, they made serious errors which led to the shipwreck of the Fourth. The leadership of the Fourth International was totally incapable of understanding the new situation that arose after 1945. The break-up and splintering of the Trotskyist movement is rooted in that period.

It is not possible here to go into more detail about the mistakes of the then leadership of the Fourth International, but it is sufficient to say that Mandel, Cannon and co., lost their bearings after the war and this led to a complete abandonment of genuine Marxism. The so-called Fourth International degenerated after the death of Trotsky into an organically petit-bourgeois sect. It has nothing in common with the ideas of its founder or with the genuine tendency of Bolshevism-Leninism. The sectarian attitude of the pseudo-Trotskyist sects towards the Bolivarian Revolution is a particularly crass example of this.

The Second and Third Internationals degenerated into reformist organisations, but at least they had the masses. Trotsky, in exile, did not have a mass organization, but he had a correct programme and policy and a clean banner. He was respected by workers all over the world and his ideas were listened to. Today the so-called Fourth International does not exist as an organisation. Those who speak in its name (and there are a few of them) have neither the masses, nor the correct ideas, nor even a clean banner. All talk of resurrecting the IV International on this basis is absolutely excluded.

The movement has been thrown back

Lenin was always honest. His slogan was: always say what is. Sometimes the truth is unpalatable, but we need to state the truth always. The truth is that, for a combination of circumstances, objective and subjective, the revolutionary movement has been thrown back, and the forces of genuine Marxism reduced to a small minority. That is the truth, and whoever denies it is merely deceiving himself and deceiving others.

Decades of economic growth in the advanced capitalist countries have given rise to an unprecedented degeneration of the mass organizations of the working class. It has isolated the revolutionary current, which everywhere has been reduced to a small minority. The collapse of the Soviet Union has served to sow confusion and disorientation in the movement, and set the final seal on the degeneration of the former Stalinist leaders, many of whom have passed over to the camp of capitalist reaction.

Many have drawn pessimistic conclusions from this. To those people we say: it is not the first time we have faced difficulties, and we are not in the least frightened by such difficulties. We retain unshakable confidence in the correctness of Marxism, in the revolutionary potential of the working class and in the final victory of socialism. The present crisis exposes the reactionary role of capitalism, and places on the order of the day the revival of international socialism. There are the beginnings of a regroupment of forces internationally. What is required is to give that regroupment an organized expression and a clear programme, perspective and policy.

The task we are confronted with is roughly analogous to that which confronted Marx and Engels at the time of the founding of the First International. As we explained above, that organization was not homogeneous but composed of many different tendencies. However, Marx and Engels were not deterred by this. They joined the general movement for a working class International and worked patiently to provide it with a scientific ideology and programme.

What sets the International Marxist Tendency (IMT) apart from all the other tendencies that claim to be Trotskyists is, on the one hand, our painstaking attitude to theory, on the other, our approach towards the mass organisations. As opposed to all the other groups we take as our starting point the fact that when the workers move into action, they will not go towards some small grouping on the fringes of the Labour movement. In the founding document of our movement Marx and Engels explained:
“In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole?

“The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties.

“They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.

“They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.

“The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.

“The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.” (Marx and Engels, The Communist Manifesto, Proletarians and Communists)
What conclusion do we draw from this? Only this: that genuine Marxists must not separate themselves from the mass organisations. The dilemma of the epoch is that the Social democratic leadership of the workers’ movement has capitulated to bourgeois policies stifling the aspirations of the workers, but still retains mass support in many countries. It is very easy to declare the official leadership degenerate. However, the task is to build up an alternative.

The International will not be built by merely proclaiming it. It will only be built on the basis of events, as the Communist International was built on the basis of the experience of the masses in the stormy period of 1914-1920. Events, events, events are what are necessary to educate the masses in the necessity of a revolutionary transformation of society. But in addition to events, we need to create an organization with clear ideas and solid roots in the masses on a world scale.

How to defend the Venezuelan revolution


http://www.marxist.com/images/thumbs/250x166-images-stories-venezuela-Uh_Ah_Chavez_no_se_va_-_chavez_psuv_triumpho.jpg (http://www.marxist.com/images/stories/venezuela/Uh_Ah_Chavez_no_se_va_-_chavez_psuv_triumpho.jpg)
Hugo Chávez, leader of the Venezuelan Revolution, is now proposing the setting up the Fifth International. Photo by Uh Ah, ¡Chavez no se va!


In his Caracas speech, Hugo Chavez pointed out that all previous Internationals were originally based in Europe, reflecting the class battles in Europe at that time, but that today the epicentre of world revolution was in Latin America, and especially in Venezuela. It is an undeniable fact that, at least for the present, the revolution in Latin America has gone further than anywhere else in the world. The IMT explained this perspective ten years ago, and it has been amply confirmed by events.

In stating this undeniable fact, Chavez by no means denied the existence of a revolutionary potential in the rest of the world, including Europe and North America. On the contrary, he has made repeated appeals to the workers and youth of these countries to join the movement for socialist revolution. He has appealed directly to the workers, the poor and the Afro-Americans of the USA to support the Venezuelan Revolution. This has nothing in common with the reactionary demagogy of “Third Worldism” that tries to counterpose “Latin America” with the “gringos”. It is the voice of true Internationalism, which long ago launched the inspiring slogan: “workers of all countries unite!”

Imperialism is hell-bent on putting an end to the revolutionary process that is taking place in Latin America. Venezuela is the undisputed vanguard of this process and the internationalist policies of Chávez and his continued calls for world revolution is a beacon of light to all anti-imperialist fighters throughout the world. The Venezuelan revolution represents a mortal danger for the ruling classes throughout the Americas. This explains why U.S. Imperialism has taken new steps to control the situation: the installation of seven military bases in Colombia, the coup d'etat in Honduras and last but not least the agreement for setting up new military bases in Panama, which will effectively surround Venezuela with a U.S. Military presence.

For the Venezuelan Revolution, internationalism is not a secondary consideration but a life and death question. In the last analysis, the only way to paralyze the hand of US imperialism is to build a powerful mass movement on a world scale in defence of the Revolution. It is important to build this movement in Latin America, but it is a thousand times more important to build it north of the Rio Grande. That is why the IMT has launched and consistently supported the international campaign Hands Off Venezuela. The HOV campaign has a proud record in mobilizing the public opinion of the world in support of the Venezuelan Revolution. We have to our credit the passing of a unanimous resolution of the British trade unions in defence of the Venezuelan Revolution, the mass meeting of 5,000 young people and trade unionists in Vienna to hear President Chavez speak, among others.

From small beginnings we are now present in more than 40 countries. This is a great achievement but it is only the beginning. What is needed is something more than a solidarity campaign. What is needed is a revolutionary international against imperialism and capitalism, for socialism and in defence of the Venezuelan Revolution. What is needed is a genuine worldwide revolutionary International.

Reformism or revolution?

The Caracas Agreement (El Compromiso de Caracas) was based on the idea of a worldwide fight against imperialism and capitalism, for socialism. That is a sufficient basis to unite the most militant sections of the international labour movement. However, we note that this appeal has met with a mixed response, even among some of the leaders that were present in the PSUV Congress. The reformists and Social Democrats did not like the President’s insistence that the Fifth International should not be merely anti-imperialist but also anti-capitalist and socialist. This ruffled a few feathers. Some of the representatives present at the Gathering of Left Parties in Caracas opposed this call with the argument that we already have the “Sao Paulo Forum” and that such an international did not need to be openly anti-capitalist.

The repeated meetings of the “Sao Paulo Forum” have clearly exposed the limitations of such gatherings, which have turned out to be nothing more than a mere talking shop: a place where all kinds of reformists can gather to complain about the injustices of capitalism, but who never offer a revolutionary perspective and do not stand for socialism. Rather, they advocate the reformist method of partial reforms, which do not change anything substantial. That is why the international organs of imperialism, such as the World Bank, look with favour on this kind of thing and actively encourage and finance the NGOs as a means of diverting attention away from the revolutionary struggle to change society.

Organizations like the “Sao Paulo Forum” and the World Social Forum do not carry the world struggle against capitalism a single step forward. That is why Chavez has proposed the formation of the Fifth International, which is a radical break with such movements. In his speech Chavez said that the real threat to the future of the human race was capitalism itself. Referring to the world capitalist crisis, he condemned the attempts of western governments to save the system with lavish state bailouts. Our task, he said, was not to save capitalism but to destroy it.

Chavez said that the appeal is made to left parties, organisations and currents. The appeal has opened a mass debate in Venezuela and also a debate within many left wing parties and organisations throughout Latin America and beyond. It has naturally caused divisions – but these divisions already existed. They are the divisions that have always existed within the movement: the division between those who wish merely to introduce a few reforms, to prettify capitalism, and those who wish to abolish capitalism, root and branch.

In El Salvador for instance, President Funes, who is formally a member of the FMLN, has opposed the Fifth International and said he has nothing to do with socialism. Yet the FMLN has officially come out in favour of the Fifth International. In Mexico the idea has been taken up by sections of the PRD and other mass organisations. In Europe this will be surely discussed in the Communist Parties and ex-Communist Parties, and in the Left in general. Sooner or later, every tendency will have to take a position on this.

What attitude should Marxists take?

What position should the Marxists take? As Marxists we are unconditionally in favour of the setting up of mass international organisation of the working class. No genuine mass International exists at present. What was the IV International was destroyed by the mistakes of the leaders after Trotsky’s assassination, and in effect is only alive in the ideas, methods and programme defended by the IMT. The IMT defends the ideas of Marxism in the mass organisations of the working class in all countries. It is within these organisations that a discussion around the proposal of the Fifth International should be promoted with urgency.

It is too early to say whether the appeal for a Fifth International will actually lead to the formation of a genuine International. That depends on many things. However, it is clear that the fact that this appeal comes from Venezuela and President Chavez means that it will get an echo among many people in Latin America to start with. This appeal will raise many questions in the minds of workers and youth about the programme such an international should have and about the history of the previous internationals, the reasons for their rise and fall.

This is a debate in which the Marxists have a duty to participate actively. The IMT, which is already recognised widely for its role in building solidarity with and providing Marxist analysis about the Venezuelan Revolution, must take a clear position. And we have taken a position. At a meeting of the International Executive Committee in the first week of March, with the presence of more than 40 comrades representing more than 30 different countries in Asia, Europe and America (including Canada and the USA), the IMT voted unanimously in favour of participating in the building of the Fifth International.

We declare our full support for the setting up of a mass based revolutionary international, and will make clear proposals of what we think the programme and ideas of the new International should be. We do not seek to impose our views on anybody. The International, and its component parts, will work out its political positions over a period, through a democratic debate and also on the basis of common experience.


For a worldwide anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist united front!
For the international socialist revolution!
For a Marxist programme!
Long live the Fifth International!
Workers of the world unite!

[zimmerwald1915]

Yes, yes, we get it, the IMT are rank opportunists who see only what they want to see in the appeal for the Fifth International. Can we have threads about something new already?

[Guest1]

If you actually read the article, maybe we could have an intelligent debate about it. if you're incapable of that, you could simply ignore this thread and go somewhere else.

[zimmerwald1915]

We need what is the dividing line. It seems it is not disagreeable in principle with his call for a new Internationale. Communists by themselves are not strong enough to defeat capitalism at this point. But a basis of Unity on a principle of defeating capitalism and establishing socialism is a good starting point.
It is true that an International cannot be built from nothing. But trying to substitute for real communist militants and organizations the left-wing sometime managers of capital and breakers of strikes is at best opportunism and at worst betrayal. Communist militants become communist militants because of their experience in the working class, enriched by theoretical work and discussion. They are not to be found today in the leadership of the parties appealed to to create the Fifth International.

[red cat]

In his Caracas speech, Hugo Chavez pointed out that all previous Internationals were originally based in Europe, reflecting the class battles in Europe at that time, but that today the epicentre of world revolution was in Latin America, and especially in Venezuela. It is an undeniable fact that, at least for the present, the revolution in Latin America has gone further than anywhere else in the world. The IMT explained this perspective ten years ago, and it has been amply confirmed by events.


Is Chavez aware that there is a place called South Asia ?

[zimmerwald1915]

Is Chavez aware that there is a place called South Asia ?
Probably, he's best buds with Iran's leadership after all. But his knowledge of South Asia isn't going to get in his way of some gratuitous nationalistic one-upmanship wrapped in a red cloak.

[Charles Xavier]

blank

[pranabjyoti]

South America is the centre of revolution right now.
In that case I am interested to see the view of the International towards the parties that are in the path of armed struggle.

[red cat]

South America is the centre of revolution right now.

Depends on how you define "centre", and more importantly, "revolution". :rolleyes:

[InuyashaKnight]

South America is the centre of revolution right now.

You think? Back your theory up.

[Charles Xavier]

blank

[red cat]

Also consider Chavez's claim that guerrilla warfare has no future in Latin America, and him along with Castro, trying to pursue the FARC to give up armed struggle.

[Voloshinov]

Also consider Chavez's claim that guerrilla warfare has no future in Latin America, and him along with Castro, trying to pursue the FARC to give up armed struggle.

Guerrilla warfare in general has never got much future.

[red cat]

Guerrilla warfare in general has never got much future.

Please explain why.

[Voloshinov]

Please explain why.

I think we all know the classic answers to this question; guerrilla warfare is (1) an expression of the political weakness of the working class in a certain country/region, and therefore (2) a substitutionalist vehicle for the class struggle whereby the majority of the class remains passive. (3) This passivity and substitutionalism, combined with the military structure of the guerrilla, constitute strong determinants of bureaucratization/degeneration when a new regime is established. Real emancipation is always self-emancipation. A real revolution is the masses liberating themselves by acquiring political consciousness. The military aspect is always secondary.

Furthermore, the experience of Cuba has been exported to other national contexts where the circumstances for a successful guerrilla war were much less favorable (much of South America and Africa, for example). Even though there were communists among the Cuban guerrilla leaders, I doubt if the Cuban "regime change" would have resulted in a socialist state without the existence of a bipolar world order, which pushed any national liberation movement (initially) in the arms of either the West or the SU.

In conclusion, guerrilla warfare certainly has had its historical and even contemporary merits, but I see it as a tactic/strategy demanded by very specific circumstances and not at all as a general model to be followed throughout the Third World. Today the working class in most Third World countries constitute the majority of the people and a proletarian mass revolution, rather than guerrilla warfare, should be on the agenda.

[red cat]

I think we all know the classic answers to this question; guerrilla warfare is (1) an expression of the political weakness of the working class in a certain country/region, and therefore (2) a substitutionalist vehicle for the class struggle whereby the majority of the class remains passive. (3) This passivity and substitutionalism, combined with the military structure of the guerrilla, constitute strong determinants of bureaucratization/degeneration when a new regime is established. Real emancipation is always self-emancipation. A real revolution is the masses liberating themselves by acquiring political consciousness. The military aspect is always secondary.

Furthermore, the experience of Cuba has been exported to other national contexts where the circumstances for a successful guerrilla war were much less favorable (much of South America and Africa, for example). Even though there were communists among the Cuban guerrilla leaders, I doubt if the Cuban "regime change" would have resulted in a socialist state without the existence of a bipolar world order, which pushed any national liberation movement (initially) in the arms of either the West or the SU.

In conclusion, guerrilla warfare certainly has had its historical and even contemporary merits, but I see it as a tactic/strategy demanded by very specific circumstances and not at all as a general model to be followed throughout the Third World. Today the working class in most Third World countries constitute the majority of the people and a proletarian mass revolution, rather than guerrilla warfare, should be on the agenda.

Guerrilla warfare is much more than that. In third world countries, though the vast majority of the masses are greatly oppressed, they lack the organization in the given conditions to fight back. The first very small portion of the masses that manages to organize, needs to both expand and save itself from being destroyed by the ruling class (due to absence of even bourgeois democracy). So it begins guerrilla warfare. In the later stages of guerrilla warfare, the broad masses organize themselves into militias and large armies and they seize power by winning a conventional war against the ruling class. We have seen this in China, Vietnam and also in the present Maoist and Guevarist struggles.

Thus, stating that guerrilla warfare has no future in Latin America means bringing up a revisionist line that tries to liquidate any revolutionary effort in the first place.

[Yehuda Stern]

I actually agree that guerilla action by itself cannot advance the revolution (a workers revolution, at least, although it can certainly be part of it). However, the problem is that Chavez was trying to convince the FARC to disarm and come to terms with the bourgeois state, something which shows clearly whose side he is on.

[red cat]

I actually agree that guerilla action by itself cannot advance the revolution (a workers revolution, at least, although it can certainly be part of it).

True, but in third world countries guerrilla warfare has to precede mass-participation in the revolution.

[Alaric]

zimmerwald1915 wrote:



Yeah, tell that to the KPD, or the socialist leaders of the Praque Spring, etc, etc, etc.



I take particular, and direct, offence at that comment. The Socialist Alliance here in Australia has delegates at the conference in Venezuela, and was invited to support the initiative for a "fifth international" - which we did.

That is different from joining it, although it doesn't exist yet, and depending upon its structure (which is likely to be quite loose, rather than a replay of the grotesque mistakes of the 3rd and 4th) we may. What Chavez declared was that he's sick of calling for left regroupment/ a new international - he's just going to do it.

So, yes, he is deadly serious this time. rararoadrunner, it is the real deal. Moreover, it is *not* simply an "anti-imperialist" international. The PCV proposed that, but Chavez wouldn't have a bar of it. Whatever you (or I, for that matter) might think of the calibre of some of the parties in attendance who lent their support, the call is for a pluralist, diverse, "21st century socialist" international.

I think it's particularly telling of the state of the left that when a revolutionary, in a country undergoing revolutionary changes and upheaval, on a continent where the same is taking place, calls for international collaboration between socialists, some petty armchair warriors poo-poo it without a second thought, and declare everyone involved "counter-revolutionary".

Organising ourselves solely on the grounds of "ideological purity" is a recipe for global disaster and catastrophe at the current juncture. This doesn't mean an abandonment of ideology - the very opposite in fact. But there has never been more need for genuine, tolerant, effective cooperation between socialist forces than there is now.

Maybe this new "international" will assist that. Maybe not. But you've got to give it a try.
Well spoken Comrade! This could be the beginning of something huge and sweeping. We can't ignore it. Let us watch this development with open minds, ready to heed the call.

[chegitz guevara]

True, but in third world countries guerrilla warfare has to precede mass-participation in the revolution.

No it does not. It may proceed it, but the conditions do not always necessitate guerrilla war. A mass strike might bring down the state.

[red cat]

No it does not. It may proceed it, but the conditions do not always necessitate guerrilla war. A mass strike might bring down the state.

The necessary organizational work for the mass strike will not be possible without protection from armed forces.

[chegitz guevara]

The state is composed of people with links to the masses. Under the right circumstances, whole sections of the state can switch sides. That's how the Bolsheviks were able to seize power. If the army and navy hadn't followed them, the revolution would be a footnote.

[red cat]

The state is composed of people with links to the masses. Under the right circumstances, whole sections of the state can switch sides. That's how the Bolsheviks were able to seize power. If the army and navy hadn't followed them, the revolution would be a footnote.

True, but creating these right circumstances require either bourgeois democracy or a revolutionary armed force.

[chegitz guevara]

No. Natural and man made disasters can do this. Guerrilla war falls under man-made disaster.

Every revolution or upsurge in the revolutionary movement has come after such a disaster: the Franco-Prussian War, the Chicago Fire, the Potato Famine, the Russo-Japanese War, WWII, the Spanish Civil War, WWII, the Managua Earthquake, etc. In some cases: Vietnam, Cuba, etc., it was a guerrilla war that created a crisis with which the state could not cope, and we should not discount it. But I don't think we should focus on it to the exclusion of all other possibilities.

[red cat]

No. Natural and man made disasters can do this. Guerrilla war falls under man-made disaster.

I disagree. The complexity of the society is so great that only something comparable to the scales of the cretaceous extinction can do this, as far as natural factors are concerned.

EDIT: Natural factors can help in doing this, but a final push by organized revolutionary forces is necessary.

[chegitz guevara]

I disagree. The complexity of the society is so great that only something comparable to the scales of the cretaceous extinction can do this, as far as natural factors are concerned.

Do you think you're overstating it just a little?

[red cat]

Do you think you're overstating it just a little?

After British imperialism took roots in Bengal( in India ), a drought and a famine wiped out about a third of the population. Did the people rise ?

[chegitz guevara]

If B only happens after A, it does not mean necessarily, that B will always happen after A. For example, you can only be born after your parents have sex, but not every act of your parents having sex will lead to you being born.

Not all guerrilla wars lead to revolutions either.

[Rosa bait]
You're thinking mechanically, not dialectically.
[/Rosa bait]

[red cat]

If B only happens after A, it does not mean necessarily, that B will always happen after A. For example, you can only be born after your parents have sex, but not every act of your parents having sex will lead to you being born.

Not all guerrilla wars lead to revolutions either.

[Rosa bait]
You're thinking mechanically, not dialectically.
[/Rosa bait]

Good logic (though the example is a little ..um .. you know what :)). But you need some evidence to back up your claim. Can you give an example of some spontaneous mass uprising that was caused due to a natural disaster and destroyed the state ?

[Die Neue Zeit]

I think we all know the classic answers to this question; guerrilla warfare is (1) an expression of the political weakness of the working class in a certain country/region, and therefore (2) a substitutionalist vehicle for the class struggle whereby the majority of the class remains passive. (3) This passivity and substitutionalism, combined with the military structure of the guerrilla, constitute strong determinants of bureaucratization/degeneration when a new regime is established. Real emancipation is always self-emancipation. A real revolution is the masses liberating themselves by acquiring political consciousness. The military aspect is always secondary.

I think this illustrates the fundamental weakness of Permanent Revolution more than anything else. Like its Menshevik-Maoist twin, Permanent Revolution underestimates the role of the nationalist petit-bourgeoisie (no, not "national bourgeoisie") in the anti-feudal tasks for developing countries.

I don't like guerrilla warfare myself, seeing its limitations, but the Trotskyist critique of it has more to do with sticking to the line of Permanent Revolution (mass strike-ism) than with rediscovering the very radical Second International line on developing countries, one variant of which was Lenin's revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry.

[red cat]

Like its Menshevik-Maoist twin, Permanent Revolution underestimates the role of the nationalist petit-bourgeoisie (no, not "national bourgeoisie") in the anti-feudal tasks for developing countries.


Quite confusing. Please explain.

[Die Neue Zeit]

You and I had this discussion before in the Learning forum:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/question-third-world-t129680/index.html

"New Democracy" is a Menshevik rehash of collaborating with the bourgeoisie, when it is clear that other classes can usher in mass commodity production but with less parasitism. In doing so, this political stance casts the nationalist petit-bourgeoisie aside. The mere phenomenon of capital flight shows that no element of the bourgeoisie can ever be economically "patriotic."

Permanent Revolution stubbornly subordinates all the other non-bourgeois classes to the proletariat when the latter is in a political minority (possible even when it is the demographic majority). In doing so, this other political stance also casts the nationalist petit-bourgeoisie aside.

[Small-business owners in developing countries can be proper nationalists or compradors.]

[red cat]

You and I had this discussion before in the Learning forum:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/question-third-world-t129680/index.html

"New Democracy" is a Menshevik rehash of collaborating with the bourgeoisie, when it is clear that other classes can usher in mass commodity production but with less parasitism. In doing so, this political stance casts the nationalist petit-bourgeoisie aside. The mere phenomenon of capital flight shows that no element of the bourgeoisie can ever be economically "patriotic."

Permanent Revolution stubbornly subordinates all the other non-bourgeois classes to the proletariat when the latter is in a political minority (possible even when it is the demographic majority). In doing so, this other political stance also casts the nationalist petit-bourgeoisie aside.

[Small-business owners in developing countries can be proper nationalists or compradors.]


Before resorting to this type of worthless name-calling, learn to understand concepts which are alien to you. You don't even know the difference between petite-bourgeoisie and peasantry. In which new democratic country have you observed capital flight so far ?

And by the way, your negation of permanent revolution is flawed too. Class leadership of the proletariat over all other revolutionary classes follows from Leninism. Your theory of letting other classes, particularly what you call the national petite-bourgeoisie, provide class leadership over the revolution, is anti-Leninist and hence Menshevik itself.

[chegitz guevara]

Good logic (though the example is a little ..um .. you know what :)). But you need some evidence to back up your claim. Can you give an example of some spontaneous mass uprising that was caused due to a natural disaster and destroyed the state ?

The Sandanista Revolution is a hybrid situation. While there had been a guerrilla war going on, it was very small. The Managua earthquake and the Somoza regime's theft of aid turned the whole population against it. This gave a massive boost to the Sandanista rebels, who were then able to drive Somoza out five years later.

In Chicago, in 1873, there was a massive fire which destroyed the city. The local bourgeoisie's response led to a mass movement, largely anti-capitalist, which resulted in the Haymarket events. This doesn't actually meet your criteria, but it should be noted.

[pranabjyoti]

The Sandanista Revolution is a hybrid situation. While there had been a guerrilla war going on, it was very small. The Managua earthquake and the Somoza regime's theft of aid turned the whole population against it. This gave a massive boost to the Sandanista rebels, who were then able to drive Somoza out five years later.

In Chicago, in 1873, there was a massive fire which destroyed the city. The local bourgeoisie's response led to a mass movement, largely anti-capitalist, which resulted in the Haymarket events. This doesn't actually meet your criteria, but it should be noted.
Other than the 1917 Russian revolution, almost all the revolution of 20th century were accompanies with some sort of guerrilla warfare.

[chegitz guevara]

That's because most of them took place in places where the state didn't have effective control of the whole country. In a place like the U.S., where there is no where the government can't get at you, such a strategy would be a path to failure.

[red cat]

That's because most of them took place in places where the state didn't have effective control of the whole country. In a place like the U.S., where there is no where the government can't get at you, such a strategy would be a path to failure.

Slightly wrong analysis. The Paris Commune and Bolshevik revolution were socialist revolutions in countries where the national bourgeoisie was in power. That is why revolutionaries could organize workers and go for direct urban insurrections.

[red cat]

The Sandanista Revolution is a hybrid situation. While there had been a guerrilla war going on, it was very small. The Managua earthquake and the Somoza regime's theft of aid turned the whole population against it. This gave a massive boost to the Sandanista rebels, who were then able to drive Somoza out five years later.

In Chicago, in 1873, there was a massive fire which destroyed the city. The local bourgeoisie's response led to a mass movement, largely anti-capitalist, which resulted in the Haymarket events. This doesn't actually meet your criteria, but it should be noted.

Notice that in both cases a final push by revolutionaries was present. The high complexity of the society makes this a necessary condition.

[chegitz guevara]

No. In both cases, the national bourgeois was barely in power. The French state had been smashed by the Prussian state, and the Russian state had also been smashed by the German state.

Lesson, get Germany to invade your country. ;)

[red cat]

No. In both cases, the national bourgeois was barely in power. The French state had been smashed by the Prussian state, and the Russian state had also been smashed by the German state.

Lesson, get Germany to invade your country. ;)

I am pointing at the class that had power and the resultant relations of production. Whether the system along with the ruling class was weakening due to external and internal causes is a secondary factor.

[chegitz guevara]

I was making a demonstration that coincidence isn't causality, comrade.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Before resorting to this type of worthless name-calling, learn to understand concepts which are alien to you. You don't even know the difference between petite-bourgeoisie and peasantry. In which new democratic country have you observed capital flight so far ?

And by the way, your negation of permanent revolution is flawed too. Class leadership of the proletariat over all other revolutionary classes follows from Leninism. Your theory of letting other classes, particularly what you call the national petite-bourgeoisie, provide class leadership over the revolution, is anti-Leninist and hence Menshevik itself.

I never said the nationalist petit-bourgeoisie would provide leadership. There's a difference between such leadership and political alliances on equal terms for each class within the Bloc of Dispossessed Classes and National Petit-Bourgeoisie in developing countries.

[red cat]

I never said the nationalist petit-bourgeoisie would provide leadership. There's a difference between such leadership and political alliances on equal terms for each class within the Bloc of Dispossessed Classes and National Petit-Bourgeoisie in developing countries.

The proletariat provides CLASS LEADERSHIP over the revolution. Plain and simple. Settle for "equal terms" and your revolution won't happen at the first place.

[Die Neue Zeit]

In Maoist practice, it doesn't. You should look up the revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry.

[red cat]

In Maoist practice, it doesn't. You should look up the revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry.


Although such a revolution in a colonial and semi-colonial country is still fundamentally bourgeois-democratic in its social character during its first stage or first step, and although its objective mission is to clear the path for the development of capitalism, it is no longer a revolution of the old type led by the bourgeoisie with the aim of establishing a capitalist society and a state under bourgeois dictatorship. It belongs to the new type of revolution led by the proletariat with the aim, in the first stage, of establishing a new-democratic society and a state under the joint dictatorship of all the revolutionary classes. Thus this revolution actually serves the purpose of clearing a still wider path for the development of socialism. In the course of its progress, there may be a number of further sub-stages, because of changes on the enemy's side and within the ranks of our allies, but the fundamental character of the revolution remains unchanged.

-Mao, On New Democracy

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-2/mswv2_26.htm

[rararoadrunner]

Comrades:

Let me share something from Venezuelanalysis.com that I was turned on to from the comrades over at foros de Aporrea: doubtless it should stimulate discussion here.


The First Socialist International of the 21st Century

Apr 26th 2010 , by Kiraz Janicke, Federico Fuentes, and Julio Chavez – Venezuelanalysis.com
During the recently concluded five-month extraordinary congress (http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/5307) [1] of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela, Kiraz Janicke & Federico Fuentes had the opportunity to discuss President Hugo Chavez’s proposal to form a Fifth Socialist International, with Julio Chavez, a delegate to the PSUV congress and a member of the congress’s international committee, which is charged with drafting a specific plan of action to form a new socialist international.
The proposal that President Hugo Chavez made regarding the formation of a Fifth Socialist International has attracted a lot of attention at a global level. I'm interested in your point of view, as a delegate and member of the International Committee of the Congress of the PSUV, why propose a 5th International and what is the importance of this proposal?
I believe that the proposal launched by the President Hugo Chávez, to raise at this time a global debate on historical relevance of the need to call on all parties, movements and leftist and anti-imperialist currents of the world to have a full discussion, is based on the characterization and in-depth analysis of the crisis of global capitalism. This leads unquestionably to the conclusion that the only way to overcome the cyclical crisis of world capitalism is, in fact, by proposing a model or a path that is completely different from the neo-liberal model, the predatory model, of capitalism. There is no other alternative than the path of transition to socialism.
We believe that discussion of a transitional program, a great debate, should be happen this year in Caracas due to the role that Venezuela is playing as the epicentre of the great transformations that have occurred since the beginning of this century, which have motivated and enthused the peoples of our America, and also for the leading role that Venezuela and President Hugo Chavez are playing at the global level. We think it is necessary for all these features and for all the situations that have been presented in terms of the aggressive policy of U.S. imperialism against Venezuela, installing military bases, reactivating the Fourth Fleet and generating a media campaign of attacks and insults, both against the revolutionary process and against the leader of this process. For all these reasons, we believe it is appropriate to the call for an organization, which should have Caracas as the epicentre of a great global debate about the need to advance on a proposal to overcome the contradiction between capital and labour, where the only option, the only alternative we see as viable, feasible as a historical project of life, is precisely the path towards socialism.
We believe therefore, that drawing on the experiences and balances generated by the four previous internationals, which had Europe as their epicentre precisely because of the industrial revolution and the great contradictions that were expressed in the context of rapidly growing capitalism that led to its highest stage, imperialism, that all these contradictions have been transferred to Latin America, and have created in Venezuela the conditions, the features, to make a call of this nature. I repeat, it must become an organization that is permanent in nature, that is able to summon all the parties of the Left, social movements, prominent individuals and historical currents of thought, and not just specifically those raising the historical project of socialism, but that anti-imperialism should be the common element that brings us all together.
Of course we don’t just want one more event, one more conference. We’re not just making this call to open a discussion, a debate, to produce a document, but to actually set minimum agreements, a minimum transition program, a policy of developing in all the five continents, based on the analysis of the current situation, a characterization of each particular region, to consider expeditiously the transition towards a model that overcomes the contradictions of capital and labour.
Why is anti-imperialism being proposed as the common element and not just socialism?
We say that this call has to have a broad character, and it is possible that in some countries, such as in the Middle East, there are organizations and movements fighting against some expressions of imperialism and international Zionism as such, but that are not socialist in essence, in the programmatic sense. But, undoubtedly, they are fighting imperialism. That’s why we say that it could be that in some Islamic countries that do not have socialism as an ideological element, for example the case of the Islamic Revolution of Iran, which is anti-imperialist, that this element will be an element that will convoke as many parties, organizations, movements of the world to raise the battle, the confrontation with imperialism. As well as all those who defend a model based on the worldview of indigenous people, and also the principles and approaches of scientific socialism, elements of regional and Bolivarian thought, the ideas of Mariategui, of Marti, the tree of the three roots in Venezuela [1], and all those who are part of a historical, philosophical current that defends the claims accumulated through many years of struggle by the peoples of this part of the world.
From this perspective of an anti-imperialist character, from the vision that has been nurtured by the experience of the historical struggles of indigenous peoples, it is possible to call as many parties, movements, and currents in the world, let us repeat, for a wide-ranging debate, that is full of discussion, in order to agree on a plan, a minimum transition program, to move concretely towards a socialist project at a world level. An anti-imperialist project is the only way at this juncture, faced with the cyclical crisis of capitalism, in which capitalism is not going to collapse by itself, but is in a process of readjustment, of realignment, of looking for the possibility of a second wind; we believe that at this juncture is possible to consider an alternative, but that it must be global and anti-imperialist.
There is a core document that we have been discussing within the Congress, in the international committee of the party congress. A document in which we have assessed and taken stock of what the four previous socialist internationals signified, the context in which they were called, of the proposals, the achievements that they made, and in view of the historical relevance and the a policy of aggression against the Bolivarian revolution and the processes of transformation that have been raised in other countries, we believe that it is possible to produce a document that contains all those elements.
We have even talked about the definition of the historical subject, those who are making the call and who are the social movements, currents and parties in different continents and different countries and who are engaged in a common struggle with us, which is the struggle against imperialism.
Therefore, we believe that through this approach and, of course, discussing what the objectives of this call for a 5th International are – or as we also call it, the First Socialist International of the 21st Century, because there are some discussions with the Communist Party comrades who do not recognize the Fourth International, but we say it is not a question of numbers, but in any case, it would be the first Socialist International of this century – and under these assumptions, by seeking to broaden the programmatic base, the doctrinal principles, with an agenda of topics to discuss, a program to develop, it will be possible to go beyond simply producing a document, but rather to produce an agreement that is expressed in very concrete policies, recognizing the reality of each continent, of each country, and where this effort should lead to the articulation of a powerful global movement to allow us to move forward.
We can move forward on a debate, a discussion about what things we can agree on, opening the possibility that within the meeting there will also be a debate on the whole mechanism of coordination, of integration, beyond governments, because this is not a government event, we are talking about parties, movements, to develop an international policy which has internationalism as a spearhead of counter-hegemonic confrontation.
I think it is possible to discuss all these aspects in Venezuela, and we can then come out of it with a minimum program, a minimum plan of work, again, respecting differences, allowing us to develop a policy around different continents that would have a permanent basis, so that we have the possibility of regular meetings at a continental or regional level, to evaluate the progress of things, but it should also be binding for all organizations, movements and parties that make this call.
Here you touched on a subject that historically has always been complicated, that is, the difference between diplomatic relations of governments and the relations of parties, particularly when some of these parties are also in government, like the PSUV, which was created following the call made by a head of state. This issue has been raised, for example, about other governments with which Venezuela maintains good diplomatic relations but that are far from being a socialist, where one understands that the State should have diplomatic relations, but where left-wing forces who may be interested in participating are part of the opposition to these governments.
I think that right now we are having a very interesting debate in the ideological congress of the party. Remember that, three years ago, we had a founding congress and this is the first ideological congress. Coincidentally, we are right now finishing the discussion and debate about the programmatic basis for a party which is conceived for the transition to socialism. We are discussing the values, principles, statutes, and clearly we have been discussing and distinguishing that one thing is the government’s foreign policy and another thing is the international politics of PSUV.
I think we’re making a clear conceptualization of these two positions where, undoubtedly, there are levels of convergence because we believe that the PSUV should be a space, a scenario where policy is discussed to be executed precisely at the level of government, in this case in ministries to which international issues apply, of course with the participation, the approval of President Chavez, who is leading the State’s foreign policy and is at the same time, the party president.
There are things the government and our embassies cannot say, but the PSUV is more likely to express positions from an ideological point of view and this has been a large part of the discussion that has occurred in the national Congress.
So I think we’re making good progress in differentiating the foreign policy of the government and the party, understanding the peculiarity that in this case the president is the president of the nation and at the same time, the party president.
We have been careful not to get involved in discussions within other countries, to not take positions on issues which correspond to the peoples of those countries and their governments to take.
But in any case, the PSUV is proposing to design, to elaborate a policy, an offensive that allows us to establish contacts at the global level with those organizations and social movements that have been doing solidarity work with Venezuela, which have been supportive of the efforts and initiatives taken by the Bolivarian revolution, with the achievements of the Bolivarian Revolution, and this is giving us a chance to come together and network with many movements with many parties and organizations in the world that share the historical project of socialism, the historical project to overcome the contradiction between capital and labour.
We believe we have made great strides in this need to differentiate what is the government's foreign policy and what is the party’s international politics. Internationalism is enshrined in the statutes in the values and principles, because this is not a party that is thinking only about the transition that is happening in Venezuela. We are talking about a party that has to assume internationalism, solidarity and to develop the necessary initiatives in terms of confronting imperialism and strengthening policy coordination with those parties, movements and organizations that defend anti-imperialist struggle.
I think we have made significant progress there. We do not believe that at this moment, just as we are finishing the first ideological congress of the party, that we have the party that we want, but undoubtedly, we have advanced, we have taken very strong steps towards building this powerful instrument within which we can discuss and debate the major issues, major policies, major decisions to advance the transition to socialism.
Has the document drafted by the commission been approved already or is it still under discussion?
The international commission was charged with the responsibility of drawing up a document. The document is circulating internally at the party; it is in the hands of the national leadership and, of course, has been raised for the consideration of the president of the party.
The document is circulating and there have been some comments, and when the president authorizes it, that is the basic document that will be released to encourage and motivate the discussion on the historical relevance and the need to convene all the parties and movements across the world that struggle against imperialism and for the construction of a socialist project.
Obviously, in a revolutionary situation, things cannot simply be determined by a calendar, particularly in the context of the offensive that imperialism has launched in recent months, but is there an idea, at least, of when the founding of the 5th International will be?
Indeed there is a whole plan of different phases that has been submitted for consideration, where it has been proposed to convoke meetings at a regional or continental level, to create promotional teams, with a strategy for disseminating information so that it can be built from the bottom up. It is anticipated that all these elements, the creation of an information system, making all the communicational elements that the revolution has been using, all these tools, all these resources, available to the revolution and parties worldwide, will be part of this plan by phases.
There is also the idea of holding various meetings, where there is even the possibility that our delegations will travel to other continents, other countries to discuss, to motivate, to create the conditions for starting to debate the issue.

Source URL (retrieved on [I]28/04/2010 - 8:11am): http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/5308
Links:
[1] http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/5307 (http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/5307)

[Ligeia]

^
This article has already been posted to discussion here:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/first-socialist-international-t134052/index.html
:)
You're right, there's a discussion going on.

[rararoadrunner]

The First International of the 21st Century: Socialist or Antisocialist?

April 30, 2010, by Matthew K. "Mateo" Owen.

Today we celebrate the liberation of Vietnam from the US puppet regime based in Saigon...you go to Vietnam today, though, and you wonder: what was it all for? Given the combination of stagnation of socialist development with the burgeoning capitalist development of Vietnam today, would Vietnam be all that different had the other side won?

Does a similar fate await Venezuela?

Venezuela is widely seen as a capitalist country with a socialist government: as such, its governing party, PSUV, or United Socialist Party of Venezuela, claims to be leading Venezuela from capitalism to socialism.

Its leader, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez Frias, recently proposed to join forces with others seeking similar transitions in their own countries to found a Fifth Socialist International (by a fortunate coincidence, the Roman numeral for five is V, so you'll be reading about the "V Socialist International") to build upon the successes, and learn from the failures, of the Internationals in which Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Vladimir Lenin, and Leon Trotsky participated.

While we see this proposal (which was originally scheduled to be launched in the month now ending, but which will probably have to await the results of the elections to the Venezuelan National Assembly coming up this September) gaining traction, now we read of a substitute proposal: to make the V International broadly anti-imperialist rather than "merely" socialist.

In the article "The First Socialist International of the 21st Century," published on Apr 26th 2010 , by Kiraz Janicke, Federico Fuentes, and Julio Chavez in Venezuelanalysis.com, we read the following:


Why is anti-imperialism being proposed as the common element and not just socialism?

We say that this call has to have a broad character, and it is possible that in some countries, such as in the Middle East, there are organizations and movements fighting against some expressions of imperialism and international Zionism as such, but that are not socialist in essence, in the programmatic sense. But, undoubtedly, they are fighting imperialism. That’s why we say that it could be that in some Islamic countries that do not have socialism as an ideological element, for example the case of the Islamic Revolution of Iran, which is anti-imperialist, that this element will be an element that will convoke as many parties, organizations, movements of the world to raise the battle, the confrontation with imperialism. As well as all those who defend a model based on the worldview of indigenous people, and also the principles and approaches of scientific socialism, elements of regional and Bolivarian thought, the ideas of Mariategui, of Marti, the tree of the three roots in Venezuela [1], and all those who are part of a historical, philosophical current that defends the claims accumulated through many years of struggle by the peoples of this part of the world.
From this perspective of an anti-imperialist character, from the vision that has been nurtured by the experience of the historical struggles of indigenous peoples, it is possible to call as many parties, movements, and currents in the world, let us repeat, for a wide-ranging debate, that is full of discussion, in order to agree on a plan, a minimum transition program, to move concretely towards a socialist project at a world level. An anti-imperialist project is the only way at this juncture, faced with the cyclical crisis of capitalism, in which capitalism is not going to collapse by itself, but is in a process of readjustment, of realignment, of looking for the possibility of a second wind; we believe that at this juncture is possible to consider an alternative, but that it must be global and anti-imperialist.A bit later on is an excellent illustration of why this debate is taking place:




Here you touched on a subject that historically has always been complicated, that is, the difference between diplomatic relations of governments and the relations of parties, particularly when some of these parties are also in government, like the PSUV, which was created following the call made by a head of state. This issue has been raised, for example, about other governments with which Venezuela maintains good diplomatic relations but that are far from being a socialist, where one understands that the State should have diplomatic relations, but where left-wing forces who may be interested in participating [in the 5th International]
are part of the opposition to these governments.
I think that right now we are having a very interesting debate in the ideological congress of the party. Remember that, three years ago, we had a founding congress and this is the first ideological congress. Coincidentally, we are right now finishing the discussion and debate about the programmatic basis for a party which is conceived for the transition to socialism. We are discussing the values, principles, statutes, and clearly we have been discussing and distinguishing that one thing is the government’s foreign policy and another thing is the international politics of PSUV.
I think we’re making a clear conceptualization of these two positions where, undoubtedly, there are levels of convergence because we believe that the PSUV should be a space, a scenario where policy is discussed to be executed precisely at the level of government, in this case in ministries to which international issues apply, of course with the participation, the approval of President Chavez, who is leading the State’s foreign policy and is at the same time, the party president.
There are things the government and our embassies cannot say, but the PSUV is more likely to express positions from an ideological point of view and this has been a large part of the discussion that has occurred in the national Congress.
So I think we’re making good progress in differentiating the foreign policy of the government and the party, understanding the peculiarity that in this case the president is the president of the nation and at the same time, the party president.
We have been careful not to get involved in discussions within other countries, to not take positions on issues which correspond to the peoples of those countries and their governments to take.This is indeed the crucial dilemma: whether to allow the V International to become the creature of the specific parties affiliated with it, and hence lose its character as a weapon that can be used by the world's working class against its rulers...or instead to insist that it have a working-class, socialist character, and be given enough autonomy to be in a position to lead, rather than follow, the parties that bring it into being.


Make no mistake: if the V International loses its socialist character, it will be used as a weapon against the working class, most especially in the countries which are home to its constituent parties.


It will have fallen to various variants of "Socialism In One Country," "National Socialism," etc.: as we were taught, at great cost, in the last century, these aren't socialist at all, but fascist.


PSUV is, first and foremost, a Venezuelan political party: it has primary responsibility to the people of Venezuela, not to the working class as a whole.


This is true of the other parties which have expressed interest in President Hugo Chavez' proposal to found a V International...which he insisted, by referring to the previous four as its predecessors (and specifically to Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Vladimir Lenin, and Leon Trotsky as their "founding fathers"), should be working-class and socialist in character.


Now we read, with alarm, a substitute proposal to reduce the V International to an ostensibly anti-imperialist hodge-podge of all parties threatened by the US hegemon.


I for one oppose this move as being hostile to the interests of the world's working classes: it defeats the whole purpose of founding a V Socialist International.


That we should even be having this debate seems to me to beg the question: can, and should, Hugo Rafael Chavez Frias attempt to lead as both President of Venezuela, and within the context of the V Socialist International?


This proposal is, after all, his: but it is too important to leave to him.


If he seeks to furnish decisive leadership to this proposal, he may have to stand down as President of Venezuela when his term ends in 2012.


If, on the other hand, he and the Venezuelan people feel he should continue in his capacity as President of Venezuela, he may have to yield leadership of the V Socialist International to a collective of its choosing, in order that it can lead rather than follow its constituent parties: only then will it be able to defend its working-class and socialist character.


I for one will fight to defend the V Socialist International as a weapon to be wielded by the world's working class against its capitalist rulers: what better way to prepare to celebrate International Workers' Day tomorrow (which was, after all, first given its political character in Chicago, USA...but is no less internationalist or socialist for that).


Who dares join me?

P.S.: Let me make it clear that I do not oppose the formation of a broad antiimperialist front.

That front already exists: the World Social Forum.

The antiimperialist character of both organisations, and the socialist nature of the V Socialist International, would both be strengthened by the V Socialist International becoming part of the WSF: the V Socialist International would then become a pole of attraction for socialists (such as President Chavez, when he revealed that he was a socialist) within the WSF.