Chavez raises Venezuelan minimum wage 25 percent

[RedSonRising]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/L/LT_VENEZUELA_CHAVEZ?SITE=ORBAK&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

CARACAS, Venezuela – President Hugo Chavez announced a 25-percent increase in Venezuela's minimum wage Friday to try to blunt the effects of soaring inflation, and defended his handling of an energy crisis and other domestic problems.


Chavez challenged opponents' predictions that his popularity could take a dive due to measures such as last week's currency devaluation and rolling blackouts imposed by the government.


"They say the country is collapsing ... that Chavez is going to fall," he said in his annual state-of-the-nation address to the National Assembly. "They are going to be disappointed."


Chavez's opponents are looking to capitalize on a range of vulnerabilities as they try to regain control of the National Assembly in September elections: energy shortages, 25-percent inflation, a banking scandal involving businessmen with ties to the government, rampant crime and heaps of trash lining potholed city streets.


"They say everything is Chavez's fault. But with so much repetition, which is what they do, some people end up believing them," he said. "There's a government here that knows what it's doing."


Chavez isn't easily thrown off balance by adversity, and "El Comandante" seemed very much at ease as he greeted hundreds of spirited supporters outside the assembly upon his arrival.


He briefly strummed on a harp, joining a musical group playing "joropo," folk music from the sun-baked central plains where the president was born and raised.


Chavez said the minimum wage will increase 10 percent in March and 15 percent in September, bringing it to nearly 1,200 bolivars, or $521 at a new preferential exchange rate set last week for priority goods such as food. Inflation is widely expected to surge higher this year after last week's devaluation.


Chavez's government also began power outages of up to four hours a day throughout the country this week. But a day after the measures took effect, Chavez suspended the outages in the capital of Caracas, saying the rationing plan was riddled with mistakes.


Critics say Chavez backtracked in response to widespread anger among the city's estimated 6 million residents. Venezuelans have also been coping with water rationing, and the government turned to power outages to prevent an electricity collapse. Drought has drained water to near-critical levels behind Guri Dam, which supplies most of Venezuela's electricity.


"We're used to living with problems in Venezuela, but now they are accumulating and reaching intolerable levels, and everything indicates that they are going to get worse," opposition politician Ramon Muchacho said in a telephone interview after Chavez's speech.


"Even though I recognize the president as an excellent campaigner," Muchacho said, "I'm sure the opposition can capitalize on this and regain political ground that it's lost."


Pollster Luis Vicente Leon said the blackouts and the devaluation are likely to have a negative impact on Chavez's popularity, although the president could possibly boost his standing with heavy government spending ahead of congressional elections in September.


Leon said Chavez's popularity stood slightly below 50 percent in a December poll by his Caracas-based polling firm, Datanalisis. The energy crisis and inflation seem to be forcing Chavez into damage-control mode and will likely press him to try to minimize his own responsibility in the problems and find scapegoats, Leon said.


Chavez has repeatedly won re-election during his 11-year presidency, but the panorama ahead of the elections "isn't an easy or agreeable situation" for him, Leon said. "It's a much more complicated situation."

[KC]

Edit

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Blackouts are not what we like to see.

However, KC - worrying about keeping inflation down and labour costs down is the exclusive preserve of the Capitalists. We shouldn't worry about these things just to stop Capitalist firms becoming angry. Obviously, rampant inflation is a problem, but not the main problem - it is more an auxiliary factor that can be controlled fairly easily by adding price controls to at least staple goods.

Allende 'failed' because Pinochet's troops surrounded his palace and killed/imprisoned virtually all of his cabinet, causing him to commit suicide in the process.

[Yehuda Stern]

KC has a point. Allende failed because he didn't want a revolution and didn't want to overthrow capitalism. Chavez is the same and his experiments might lead to a demoralization of the working class and a reactionary turn for the petty-bourgeoisie and the lumpenproletariat, leading to a Pinochet-style coup.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

That Chavez's leftist experiments 'might' demoralise the working class is no reason to simply say 'he will fail' and drop all support for him.

Chavez will fail if the left are divided on their support for him, and if there are significant sections really giving him undeserved grief. If we support the Socialist cause, and so does he, then there is nothing he or any other person can do to stop the raising of working class consciousness in Venezuela. If, however, he is derided from the left, then it is indeed likely that any attributable failure will turn the proletariat into a reactionary, class-unaware group.

[pranabjyoti]

This will not be good for the Venezuelan economy. 25% inflation is incredibly high, and enforcing a minimum wage increase in line with it will surely upset many firms. This is why his brand of "socialism" will fail.
This is also why Allende failed.
Do you respect Marx? In his essay "Labor, wage and capital, Karl Marx clearly cut the "economic" idea, that you have expressed.

[Raúl Duke]

Do you respect Marx? In his essay "Labor, wage and capital, Karl Marx clearly cut the "economic" idea, that you have expressed.

That's not a valid reason to look-down at KC's point (i.e. how in line it is with the othodox interpretation of Marxism...; fallacy of appealing to authority.)

KC's point is accurate in the sense that those 2 factors could increase turmoil especially amongst the Venezuelan upper class and large segments of the "middle class" who are mostly opposed to Chavez. I think working class support will remain the same as he's probably seen as "trying to do something about the situation by trying to get a solution in favor of the working class"

Although whether or not the firms will be upset doesn't matter much unless they use it as reason to leave, which increases unemployment. Small business though might have a bigger problem with wage increases but I guess what Chavez should do is encourage the workers to turn them into co-ops if the businesses fail, thus the worker's could still continue working their trade unless the co-op also fails or something.

[pranabjyoti]

That's not a valid reason to look-down at KC's point (i.e. how in line it is with the othodox interpretation of Marxism...; fallacy of appealing to authority.)

KC's point is accurate in the sense that those 2 factors could increase turmoil especially amongst the Venezuelan upper class and large segments of the "middle class" who are mostly opposed to Chavez. I think working class support will remain the same as he's probably seen as "trying to do something about the situation by trying to get a solution in favor of the working class"

Although whether or not the firms will be upset doesn't matter much unless they use it as reason to leave, which increases unemployment. Small business though might have a bigger problem with wage increases but I guess what Chavez should do is encourage the workers to turn them into co-ops if the businesses fail, thus the worker's could still continue working their trade unless the co-op also fails or something.
Well, what KC had said is possible only and only if the capitalists can increase their product price by dumping the increased wage on the consumers, but in that case they will loose their market. What Kc has said is only true on a very unhealthy scenario, where increase in productivity has halted and capitalists can increase the price of their products on free will.
What KC has said in "reactionary" in a very basic sense, the "economic(!)" theory, that prevents workers to make any kind of economic struggle which can be helpful to increase their living standards. Because, as per that "theory", any increase in wage will end up in inflation and so any kind of struggle by workers to increase their wage or reduce working hours are useless at the end.
Problem with some people here, to them everything that had been discussed by our great leaders are "orthodox" and we can just ignore them. Even there are Gobbets here who dare to say Marxism isn't science. I can't understand, those who don't have the basic understanding of "what science is", why waste time here.

[BobKKKindle$]

KC is exactly right, of course. As long as the means of production in Venezuela remain subject to private ownership and control it will be possible for the bourgeoisie to subvert any policies that the state adopts with the aim of improving the conditions of Venezuelan workers. An important point about Marx's theory of the state that people often ignore is that the state under capitalism serves the interests of the bourgeoisie (and hence is a capitalist state) not so much because the state is under the direct control of people who belong to the bourgeoisie or people who have an ideological commitment to capitalism, but rather because the state operates in the context of a capitalist society, in which economic power is concentrated in the hands of a minority. This unequal distribution of economic power means that the state has no choice but to respect the class interests of the bourgeoisie because if it fails to do so the resulting collapse of economic stability (due to capitalists raising prices to compensate for increased costs, moving their capital out of the country because the government seeks to impose higher tax rates, or whatever) will force out whichever government happens to be in office, or even endanger the state itself. We can see, then, that economic power is also political because the economic decisions of capitalists have political implications and constitute a means of putting political pressure on the state, and that this more than anything else makes meaningful democracy under capitalism impossible - above and beyond who controls the state at a given point in time.

I should add that this is especially true during the imperialist stage of capitalism when the leading capitalists in underdeveloped countries are corporations, who can easily move their production elsewhere if a single country seeks to defy the imperatives of capital. A further way in which the Venezuelan state in particular is subject to economic forces that are beyond its control is its dependence on oil, as this limits the state's control on revenue and forces it to make cutbacks whenever oil prices are falling. The only solution is an international planned economy.

[scarletghoul]

Woop, go Chavez !

[Winter]

Raising the minimum wage under a mixed economic system with large aspects of capitalism will cause the bourgeoisie to raise their prices in order to maximize profits. This is going to do a great deal of damage especially to the petty bourgeois small business owners who will more likely gain even more animosity toward Chavez.

[Q]

Chavez will fail if the left are divided on their support for him, and if there are significant sections really giving him undeserved grief. If we support the Socialist cause, and so does he, then there is nothing he or any other person can do to stop the raising of working class consciousness in Venezuela. If, however, he is derided from the left, then it is indeed likely that any attributable failure will turn the proletariat into a reactionary, class-unaware group.
This moralistic attitude is of course quite wrong. Chavez is president of a capitalist state and as such there is only so much he can do with his "radical" reformism as noted by other posters here. These policies will inevitably cause a capitalist reaction, like we saw for example in 2002. If we want to secure the reforms and extent them much further then what is needed is a takeover of society by the organised masses of the working class. This cannot be achieved when the left limits itself to hailing Chavez, on the contrary, a ruthlessly critical approach is necessary towards Chavez, only then do we take him seriously.

[KC]

Edit

[cyu]

This will not be good for the Venezuelan economy. 25% inflation is incredibly high, and enforcing a minimum wage increase in line with it will surely upset many firms. This is why his brand of "socialism" will fail.

This is also why Allende failed.


Excerpt from http://socialistworld.net/eng/2010/01/0401.html

The tragic experience of Salvador Allende´s Popular Unity government (1970-1973) in Chile provides important lessons for the Bolivian masses today. Allende, too, enjoyed democratic support and carried out a program of nationalisations and land reform, albeit on a much larger scale. Like Morales, Allende spoke of a “peaceful, democratic revolution” and, in spite of relentless attacks, believed the capitalist opposition would ultimately have to respect his democratic mandate. He held onto these illusions right up until the end, even while sections of the military were alerting him to plans of a coup and 500,000 workers and peasants were marching to the presidential palace asking for arms to defend their revolution and the Allende government. On 11 September, military general, Agosto Pinochet, led a military coup, first bombing the presidential palace, killing Allende, and then unleashing a murderous reaction against the social movements and poor. The “peaceful and democratic revolution” ended, like too many others in Latin America, with the assassination and disappearance of thousands and the torture of an estimated one out of every ten Chileans.

See also http://everything2.com/title/CIA%252C+Allende%252C+and+Pinochet

Or http://web.mit.edu/hemisphere/events/kissinger-chile.shtml -

“I don’t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist because of the irresponsibility of its own people.”
—Henry Kissinger, June 27, 1970

At a Sept. 15 meeting called to halt the spread of infection, Kissinger and President Nixon told CIA Director Richard Helms it would be necessary to “make the [Chilean] economy scream.” While allocating at least $10 million to assist in sabotaging Allende’s presidency, outright assassination was also considered a serious and welcome option.

[FSL]

There is a 25% increase in wages in a country with an inflation rate just as high -and in real risk of going higher because of the devaluation. Ie, real wages remain stagnant at best, why the partying?
Not that fearmongering is any better, workers should get (real) wage increases even in a free market where it might all turn in inflation. That's just another battle to fight.


But I'm really really curious as to what Trotskyists mean when they say overthrowing capitalism. More details please?

[Kléber]

If, however, he is derided from the left, then it is indeed likely that any attributable failure will turn the proletariat into a reactionary, class-unaware group.
You're going against Marx and Lenin. Military defense of Chávez against imperialism, always; but sacrificing the political independence of the proletariat, never.

[Comrade B]

Handing out more cash can create more inflation, I would recommend a higher income tax redistributed to lower incomes or a wage cap instead

[chegitz guevara]

It's time to stop fucking around and make the revolution. Chavez, lead, follow, or get the fuck out of the way!

[ZeroNowhere]

Do you respect Marx? In his essay "Labor, wage and capital, Karl Marx clearly cut the "economic" idea, that you have expressed.
Weston? Given that these changes were caused by inflation, which was what KC was saying, it seems you're attacking a strawman here. To be fair, the viewpoint Marx was criticizing there was expressed in this thread, but not, at least not explicitly, by KC.

[Yazman]

The Venezuelan government is actually doing something for a change, jeez thats actually quite surprising. Chavez in particular has been so full of hot air these past 2-3 years, goddamn. Correa might not be as radical rhetorically as Chavez but at least he's made a lot of changes.

[pranabjyoti]

Weston? Given that these changes were caused by inflation, which was what KC was saying, it seems you're attacking a strawman here. To be fair, the viewpoint Marx was criticizing there was expressed in this thread, but not, at least not explicitly, by KC.
The view of Weston and KC are exactly the same I think.

[Delenda Carthago]

Raising the minimum wage under a mixed economic system with large aspects of capitalism will cause the bourgeoisie to raise their prices in order to maximize profits. This is going to do a great deal of damage especially to the petty bourgeois small business owners who will more likely gain even more animosity toward Chavez.

mostly of all,there is the danger of raising the inflation and damaging the currency of the country.Still,it might be a well organised plan,lets see...during the economical crisis,it might be a punch in the face of capitalists.

[Delenda Carthago]

Matter of fact,now that i think about it...What the fuck is he doing?


In times of economical downturn,you dont fuckin raise up 25% the minimum wage!One day at the time fool!Basic economical rules!I hope it goes the right way,because I can see it from here,the disaster coming...

[cyu]

Handing out more cash can create more inflation, I would recommend a higher income tax redistributed to lower incomes or a wage cap instead


That's one way to do it. Another way would be to give employees democratic control of the pay in their companies. That would be a sure way to take down the authoritarians a few notches and bring up everyone else.

Of course, beyond mere pay control, anarcho-syndicalists would also encourage employees to assume democratic control of the rest of the company as well. :cool:

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Matter of fact,now that i think about it...What the fuck is he doing?


In times of economical downturn,you dont fuckin raise up 25% the minimum wage!One day at the time fool!Basic economical rules!I hope it goes the right way,because I can see it from here,the disaster coming...

You're playing by classical economic theory.

In reality, one can control prices if necessary - of course not all prices, but of staples - food etc. As Venezuela is a leading exporter of oil, the high export revenues will offset, indirectly, the threat of stagflation - low growth and high inflation.

Of course, it depends entirely on where the inflation is coming from. If the inflation was mainly coming from food and electricity/gas bills, then that would indeed be problematic. If the inflation (being extravagant) was in lobster and caviar, for example, then you can see that even if it ravaged the national inflation figure, it would not, in reality, be a huge problem.

The problem with the friedmanites and other classical economists of this world is that Macroeconomic measurements of growth and inflation are their gospel, and they simply refuse to analyse the real world consequences of their actions, most of which are a direct reaction to the movements of these figures.

[pranabjyoti]

You're playing by classical economic theory.

In reality, one can control prices if necessary - of course not all prices, but of staples - food etc. As Venezuela is a leading exporter of oil, the high export revenues will offset, indirectly, the threat of stagflation - low growth and high inflation.

Of course, it depends entirely on where the inflation is coming from. If the inflation was mainly coming from food and electricity/gas bills, then that would indeed be problematic. If the inflation (being extravagant) was in lobster and caviar, for example, then you can see that even if it ravaged the national inflation figure, it would not, in reality, be a huge problem.

The problem with the friedmanites and other classical economists of this world is that Macroeconomic measurements of growth and inflation are their gospel, and they simply refuse to analyse the real world consequences of their actions, most of which are a direct reaction to the movements of these figures.
In this thread, I have quoted Marx to oppose this kind of "Economic" theory, but rather got replies like "old, orthodox" view of Marxism. You can view my points in this thread.

[KC]

Edit

[Left-Reasoning]

The problem with the friedmanites and other classical economists of this world is that Macroeconomic measurements of growth and inflation are their gospel, and they simply refuse to analyse the real world consequences of their actions, most of which are a direct reaction to the movements of these figures.

Comrade, Friedman was from the Chicago School of economics and therefore a neoclassical, not a classical, economist.

[cyu]

Of course, it depends entirely on where the inflation is coming from. If the inflation was mainly coming from food and electricity/gas bills, then that would indeed be problematic. If the inflation (being extravagant) was in lobster and caviar, for example, then you can see that even if it ravaged the national inflation figure, it would not, in reality, be a huge problem.


Part of the problem is the existence of the rich-poor gap itself. As the gap increases, the rich are able to hire away a larger and larger fraction of the economy's resources, leaving less to produce for the poor. This leads to rising prices of things the poor consume. Excerpt from Demand is not measured in units of people, it is measured in units of money (http://everything2.com/title/Demand+is+not+measured+in+units+of+people%252C+it+ is+measured+in+units+of+money):

A market economy can work pretty well to determine what needs to be produced, provided there's one condition: that everyone has relatively equal amounts of spending power. Consider the concept of supply and demand: in theory, the more demand there is for some product or service, a market economy will be encouraged to increase the supply for that product or service.

However, there is a flaw in the theory above that many pro-capitalists overlook: demand (in a capitalist economy) is not measured in units of people, it is measured in units of money. Thus you can have 99% of the people "demanding" basic necessities of life, but it won't matter a bucket of spit compared to a rich man with millions of times more money, who is demanding luxury goods. As the gap between rich and poor increases, the market economy will be focused more and more on producing luxury goods for the oppressive minority.

In order to have a market economy that serves everyone, rather than the wealthy few, spending power must be relatively equal.

[Devrim]

25% inflation is incredibly high, and enforcing a minimum wage increase in line with it will surely upset many firms.

25% inflation is not 'incredibly high'. It is higher than that in most Western countries at the moment. However, I can remember the inflation rate being higher when I lived in the UK. Here in Turkey, I can remember afternoons with over 100% inflation.

More importantly though according to the IMF inflation in Venezuela was running at 30.4% in 2008, was projected at 36.5% for last year, and 43.5% for this year.

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2009/01/weodata/weorept.aspx?sy=1980&ey=2014&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=299&s=PCPI%2CPCPIPCH&grp=0&a=&pr1.x=55&pr1.y=5

If these figures are correct, then what a 25% increase means is a massive attack on workers' living standards.

Devrim

[cyu]

When someone works for a living and lives paycheck-to-paycheck, having almost nothing in their bank account, does inflation hurt them more or less than someone who doesn't work for a living, but has inherited 10,000,000 bolivars in his bank account?

When someone is in debt for 1,000 bolivars because he's been taking out credit to pay for housing and medical bills, does inflation hurt him more or less than the banker who has billions of bolivars loaned out left and right so he can live off the interest payments?

Anyway, excerpt from http://everything2.com/title/fiat%20money

At the end of a season, a farmer may find that he has harvested 500 bushels of grain (or maybe a group of oil workers find that they have 500 barrels of oil). Then the farmer issues one paper note for each bushel (or the oil workers issue one paper note for each barrel), and then takes that note to spend in the local economy.

As long as the other members of the community know they can redeem the paper note for a bushel of wheat or barrel of oil at any time, then the paper note has value, and can be used as currency. When someone finally redeems the paper note for the grain / oil, then the note is destroyed.

If you feel paper backed only by barrels of oil or bushels of grain is not stable enough, then it's not hard to back it with a more diversified basket of goods. It would be similar to investing in various index funds - some baskets of goods may try to mimic the consumer price index - other baskets may be more focused on the energy sector or the construction materials sector.

[Devrim]

When someone works for a living and lives paycheck-to-paycheck, having almost nothing in their bank account, does inflation hurt them more or less than someone who doesn't work for a living, but has inherited 10,000,000 bolivars in his bank account?

In my experience, having lived in a high inflation economy, the worker. A millionaire will be able to invest his money in foreign currency, and the worker will see his wages eaten away, day by day.

Devrim

[cyu]

A millionaire will be able to invest his money in foreign currency, and the worker will see his wages eaten away, day by day


Indeed the millionaire would. However, depending on the type of inflation, wages may or may not remain constant when inflation is happening. Sometimes, wage inflation is happening at the same time.

Anyway, if the capitalist class has put a significant amount of their wealth in foreign currency, what would happen if all fiat currencies were experiencing inflation? Excerpt from http://www.infoshop.org/rants/yu1.html

Your nation may still have in its treasury the remnants of the capitalist financial structure - gold, other precious metals, paper money from nations around the world. Spend it - as soon as possible. Buy commodities - those things you need to survive and buy any equipment you need to produce the goods you need. That is the real wealth to people who actually have to do the work.

What happens in the rest of the world as the people of your nation are suddenly flooding it with various currencies and "precious" metals, while snapping up real goods? The supply of those currencies and "precious" metals go up, while the supply of real goods go down. These goods become more and more expensive, while "money" becomes more and more worthless. Thus, there is all the more reason to exchange your money as soon as possible for real goods you will need.

[pranabjyoti]

Sorry to say, all argument here stayed on the preconceived notion of "increase in wage causes inflation". Which can be true on a very very limited scale and on a very worst kind of situation. But, most of us here based their arguments on this notion, which is silly in my view.

[Devrim]

Indeed the millionaire would. However, depending on the type of inflation, wages may or may not remain constant when inflation is happening. Sometimes, wage inflation is happening at the same time.

Of course wages go up when there is high inflation. I remember when we had really high inflation we were getting four wage rises a year. Even then you couldn't keep up with it. That's what inflation does it eats itnto worker's salaries.


Anyway, if the capitalist class has put a significant amount of their wealth in foreign currency, what would happen if all fiat currencies were experiencing inflation?

But that is not the case here.

Devrim

[ZeroNowhere]

Sorry to say, all argument here stayed on the preconceived notion of "increase in wage causes inflation". Which can be true on a very very limited scale and on a very worst kind of situation. But, most of us here based their arguments on this notion, which is silly in my view.
Um, no it has not. Generally, it has to do with inflation leading to increases in wage.

[Artemis3]

I see some people have a completely distorted view of my country as usual in this forum, but I'm glad their politic fiction has nothing to do with reality here.

KC is wrong, obviously. Not only he believes the rich still have as much power as they had in Chile, but also thinks something so insignificant, as the 25% minimum wage increase would trigger it. Well doh, Venezuela has increased the minimum wage every year in the last 10 years around the 20% figure, not too far behind from yearly inflation.

The opposition lost any military support when they failed the coup of Apr 2002, which is when KC's analysis would have made sense, and later when they failed their owners lockout and oil industry sabotage Dec 2002. The only thing they have left now is Uribe's paramilitary support, and USA funds and undercover operations and their media to flood you lies with.

Also of importance, the global economic downturn has had almost no effect in Venezuela due to a heavily controlled economy and fixed exchange rate, plus excellent oil prices and increasing trade with non USA countries (China, Russia, Brazil, etc).

[cyu]

I remember when we had really high inflation we were getting four wage rises a year. Even then you couldn't keep up with it. That's what inflation does it eats itnto worker's salaries.

Yep, that would indeed be bad. The question is, what can be done in a situation like this? I would encourage workers in this scenario to issue their own money, backed by what they produce, as described here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1653828&postcount=31


But that is not the case here.

If the goal is to destroy capitalism, then steps should be taken to move towards that scenario. In other words, start dumping foreign fiat currencies and "precious" metals in exchange for importing the means of production. Capitalists have no direct use for the means of production, since by definition, capitalists don't do any real work. Employees, on the other hand, obviously do have use for the means of production and can actually use that to increase the wealth of their society.

[cyu]

Excerpt from http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/5084

There are few things more condescending and arrogant than a journalist who arrives in a foreign country, walks around briefly in its streets, and from a few superficial observations, believes they can make a judgement on the entire economic situation of a country, as well as the social movements and hopes of millions of members of that country.

never mind all the advances here in health, education, grassroots democracy, indigenous representation, recuperation of history and culture, and the massive decrease in poverty and extreme poverty.

inflation under Chavez has averaged 22% and under the previous government of Caldera it averaged 57.8%.

Venezuela has been one of the countries least affected by the global economic crisis, why single it out when in the United States many people have lost their homes and jobs? Unemployment here increased by 0.6% last year from 7.4% in 2008 to 8%. This is not a good thing, but relative to other countries, is minor.

Venezuela has also had 20 quarters of non stop economic growth, then last year, a 2.9% contraction in the GDP, but has maintained its levels of social spending.

it is clear their main writer in Caracas, Will Grant, sees the country and its processes, changes, mistakes, dreams and problems, from the perspective of a very comfortable first world citizen. He sympathises with the upper class and opposition minority, and complains of petty things like the price of luxury goods, while ignoring all the improvements and the increased voice of the majority poor.

The media finds one or two mistakes or problems with the Venezuelan government, and uses it to discredit the Bolivarian revolution, and therefore, the possibility that other ways are possible. On the other hand, the 55% of Mumbai’s population living in slums, and the one billion people in the world living in slums and going without sufficient food, and so on, couldn’t possibly indicate that capitalism is the system that is failing.

[Devrim]

Yep, that would indeed be bad. The question is, what can be done in a situation like this? I would encourage workers in this scenario to issue their own money, backed by what they produce, as described here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1653828&postcount=31

You certainly have strange politics for an anarchist. I can't see this happening at all though, and wouldn't be in favour of it if it did anyway. Workers can not destroy capitalism by setting up banks.

Then again, it is proabably only as unanarchist as uncritically reposting parts of articles prasing Chavez without comment.

Let's look at one of the statements from the piece though:


Inflation under Chavez has averaged 22% and under the previous government of Caldera it averaged 57.8%.

I am not quite sure what the point is here. Inflation has decreased globally over the period. The fact remains though that Venezuela has the 4th highest inflation in the world: http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?c=ve&v=71

It is not that relevant to the argument though. What is essential in discussing workers living standards is the relationship between inflation and wage rises. In general the lowering of inflation is brought about by mass unemployement and impoverishment of those remaining in jobs. It is the same sort of thing that happened in the UK under Thatcher, and happened to us here more recently.

A friend of ours did some very basic analysis of the economic situation in Venezuela a couple of years ago:


Interestingly (for a retirement website), a very nice income breakdown by class can be found here:

http://www.bulletproofretirement.com/public/274.cfm?sd=2

Their analysis states that:


For Social Class E, they've seen their household income go from 437,613 Bolivares per month in 2004 to 680,419 Bolivares per month in the first quarter of 2006. Likewise, for Social Class D, their household income rose from 768,333 per month to 890,990 per month, and the lower half of Class C saw it's income rise from 1,415,099 in 2004 to 1,765,000.
(see the original text for their lettered class category definitions)those figures don't look like they're inflation-adjusted (it doesn't say they are which is standard practice when giving 'real terms' figures not actual ones). so a few sums: (edited to fix denominators, results only minorly different, same conclusions)

Inflation was estimated at 16% in 2005<fn> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Venezuela </fn> and 18.3% in January this year<fn> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6364515.stm </fn>, so i'll take 17% as an average.

Social Class E (58% population; "the extreme poor")
437,613 Bs (2004) x 1.17² = 599,048 Bs (2006)

680,419 - 599,048 (i.e. the real terms change)
----------------------- x 100 = +13.6%
599,048 (i.e. the base year figure at present value)

Social Class D (23% population; "the working class or the 'working poor'")
768,333 Bs (2004) x 1.17² = 1,051,771 Bs (2006)

890,990 - 1,051,771
------------------------ x 100 = -15.3%
1,051,771

Social Class C (~16% population; "the middle class")
1,415,099 Bs (2004) x 1.17² = 1,937,129 Bs (2006)

1,765,000 - 1,937,129
-------------------------- x 100 = -8.9%
1,937,129

There's no stats on the upper classes proper, so assuming the veracity of these statistics the poor majority are clearly better off in real terms, though this may be at the expense of the middle (working poor and lower middle class) or both the middle and top, without class A/B data we can't be sure.

A few more caveats;

(i) inflation is calculated on a 'basket of goods', if it contains imported consumer goods and the like whose prices are relatively stable, this could mask a higher rise in basic provisions (i.e. real terms inflation for the poor could outstrip the headline measure). again, we don't know, but this is a common problem, and Chavez has been talking of nationalising shops who ignore price caps and raise prices on basic foodstuffs<fn> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6364515.stm </fn>, so this is likely a problem, which means the real-terms increase in the poor's income would be somewhere below the +18.5% calculated above.

(ii) GDP growth is running at around 9.3% p/a<fn> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Venezuela - this doesn't include the black economy which is significant in venezuela, so all sums with GDP involved are very provisional, but nonetheless indicative because GDP does include oil revenues, the major source of recent 'growth'.</fn>, so it would be a reasonable approximation to take across-the-board income increases of 9.3% per year (19.5% compounded over two years) as a base expectation if everyone is sharing equally in economic growth - which is fuelled mostly by high oil prices (i.e. derived from oil rents) - roughly a third of GDP is petroleum-related and so is half of all state revenue.

Some provisional conclusions:

The income growth of the poorest 58% was outstripped by GDP growth by somewhere more than 5.9% (19.5%- lessthan13.6%), meaning their relative share of national wealth actually fell. however, there was a real-terms absolute increase in income of somewhere lessthan13.6%.

The (negative) income growth of the working poor (23% of population) was outstripped by GDP growth by around 34.8%, meaning their relative share of national wealth fell dramatically. They also suffered an absolute real-terms fall in income of around 15.3%.

The (negative) income growth of the lower middle class (16%) was outstripped by GDP growth by around 28.4%, meaning their relative share of national wealth fell. Their absolute real-terms incomes also fell by 8.9%.

Therefore, while the absolute incomes of the poor majority have risen by lessthan13.6% (whilst falling by greaterthan5.9% relative to GDP), the relative share of national wealth of 97% of the population has actually fallen by 16%<fn>Edit: i was half a percent out because of a methodological error (took 97% of the population as 100%). I think it's right now, i'm doing this looking over my shoulder in the office :bb:. the left bits with numbers above and below ----- are divisions. )

0.58
(----- x -5.9) +
0.97

0.23
(----- x -34.8) +
0.97

0.16
(----- x -28.4)
0.97

= -16.5%

</fn>, meaning that the oil-rent bonanza of high oil prices is fuelling a concentration of wealth in the country's richest 3%. Furthermore, the incomes of the 'working poor' have fallen by 15.3% in real terms and 34.8% relative to national wealth, and this in a growing economy where the richest 3% are accruing the lions share of the gains, meaning there is a clear basis for class demands/strike action etc against this attack on venezuelan workers.

note: the less than and greater than symbols fucks up the formatting as it's an open html tag, hence me writing 'lessthan' and 'greaterthan'
The income growth of the poorest 58% was outstripped by GDP growth by somewhere more than 5.9% (19.5%- lessthan13.6%), meaning their relative share of national wealth actually fell. however, there was a real-terms absolute increase in income of somewhere lessthan13.6%.

The (negative) income growth of the working poor (23% of population) was outstripped by GDP growth by around 34.8%, meaning their relative share of national wealth fell dramatically. They also suffered an absolute real-terms fall in income of around 15.3%...

meaning that the oil-rent bonanza of high oil prices is fuelling a concentration of wealth in the country's richest 3%. Furthermore, the incomes of the 'working poor' have fallen by 15.3% in real terms and 34.8% relative to national wealth, and this in a growing economy where the richest 3% are accruing the lions share of the gains,


Devrim

[FSL]

I see some people have a completely distorted view of my country as usual in this forum, but I'm glad their politic fiction has nothing to do with reality here.

... The only thing they have left now is Uribe's paramilitary support, and USA funds and undercover operations and their media to flood you lies with.

Also of importance, the global economic downturn has had almost no effect in Venezuela due to a heavily controlled economy and fixed exchange rate, plus excellent oil prices and increasing trade with non USA countries (China, Russia, Brazil, etc).


Can I ask what is it you'd "ideally" want to happen? Imagine you can do whatever you want in Venezuela with no chance of the rich fighting back with a coup attempt or the US invading. What would happen then?

The rich still have the means of the production which is pretty much what makes them the rulling class. You don't get recessions and inflation you don't control in a socialist economy.

What I'm finding worrisome in the case of Venezuela is that it seems to want to provide a new context for socialism, where private property can play a (dominant even) part as long as it is progressive. For example, there are american capitalists who are worse than say Argentinians, or there are those capitalists that speculate and who 'll be punished for that and those that don't. No talk of surplus value or worker's exploitation.


My opinion on the Bolivarian revolution is pretty much this: At its beginning, it was a part of a greater latin american movement of a fraction of capital that was seeing little profit from the US subservience. They favoured the strengthening of cooperation among latin american capitalists (with initiatives like Mercosur for example) and also a reversal of the supply side economics that had been the norm in these countries through an increase in state spending. Hardly a genuine revolution since there would be the same class in power, even if it was a different part of it. This movement was strengthened towards the end of the 90s and the early 00s with the asian financial crisis and the argentinian default that made the workers feeling a change is needed. Lula or Kirchner were part of that just as much as Chavez was, with everyone of course not following identical policies but the same guidelines. I clearly remember Chavez refusing to take over a company on the grounds that it was argentinian, so that made it a comrade somehow.

What was different in Venezuela was the existence of a very "stubborn" group of capital that felt even making the slightest concession was too much. There comes the coup. Now the smaller owners along with those capitalists that were earning quite some money through government contracts/spending were unable to fight back. That is not what they do. Workers who are the revolutionary class did though and in doing so they became the vanguard in this whole process. Now the fraction of "bolivarian capital" would need to choose sides and its majority saw a better chance of serving its interests by allying to the workers.

So progressive reforms became more and faster, workers became more involved in the deciding process, making the nature of the ongoing revolution a necessary change. This leads us to 2005 where a head of state for the first time since 1991 dares speak the "S" word and sound like he means it. But it was yet an undefined socialism. What has been going on since is that the fight against the opposition became of secondary importance, in relation to the "struggle" that's taking place inside the bolivarian movement between the workers and the bourgeois. Ministers come and ministers go, factories are occupied but not taken over, one step forward leads to one step back.
We only managed to get a clear(er) picture of bolivarian socialism these past few months with the Chavez call for a new socialist international. Personally, I didn't like what I saw at all. To me it seemed like a "tie" was declared between workers and capitalists. 21st century socialism is "progressive", yet it stays away from excesses seen before. That kind of revolutionary talk when not accompanied by the revolutionary walk, the meddling of Marx, Lenin, Bolivar, Marti and Jesus and of all these with the non-speculating cappies, that is the definition of opportunism. Modern Kerenskyism, if you will. We have little need of that.

Venezuela doesn't have a "heavily-controlled" economy. It produces as much oil as OPEC tells it to when it would need to expand oil and electricity production to develop its industry. Private bankers play the major role in funding investments, leading to recession. A significant portion of the working population remains unemployed and idle, instead of producing for the satisfaction of common needs.
It is wrong for the workers to show unconditional support to a movement that is not led by them, to sacrifice the class' political autonomy. They showed in 2002 that they are the barrel of the gun, this feels like they're simply selling themselves cheap.

[manic expression]

Right now, from what I can tell, Chavez is battling speculators, rising inflation and a host of other economic assaults by the capitalist class on Venezuela. Raising the minimum wage to account for inflation is a good move in the short term, as was Chavez's recent mobilization of working-class forces to collectivize certain businesses. The truth of the matter is that Chavez has acted as an anchor for the workers, so hopefully with these growing fights, the Venezuelan executive will be pushed into more militant stances against the bourgeoisie. That's how I see this.

On edit, people should also check this out:

http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=13531&news_iv_ctrl=1261
Article: Venezuela begins expropriation of price-gouging supermarkets.

[Devrim]

Raising the minimum wage to account for inflation is a good move in the short term,

But as has already be pointed out, the raise is below inflation, and thus a reduction in living standards.


Right now, from what I can tell, Chavez is battling speculators, rising inflation and a host of other economic assaults by the capitalist class on Venezuela.

Chavez is a the head of the capitalist state in Venezuela. He is organising attacks on the working class, not battling against them.

Devrim

[manic expression]

But as has already be pointed out, the raise is below inflation, and thus a reduction in living standards.
So between raising it 25% and not raising it at all, where do you stand?

More importantly, though, this is just another step in the battle against the capitalists in Venezuela. That it's not happening the way you think it should happen changes nothing.


Chavez is a the head of the capitalist state in Venezuela. He is organising attacks on the working class, not battling against them.
I assume you mean "not battling against the capitalists", but you'd still be wrong, because as you can see above, Chavez is mobilizing working-class forces to expropriate the enemies of the Venezuelan workers. What "attacks on the working class" has Chavez organized? He may be the head of state in a capitalist society, but remember, his executive has been the express enemy of the capitalist class since he took office; again, just because the class struggle in Venezuela isn't as perfectly clear-cut as you want it to be changes nothing.

[Devrim]

So between raising it 25% and not raising it at all, where do you stand?

We got a below inflation pay rise from our boss this year. Sure rather below inflation than nothing at all, but at least I don't try to paint my boss as a friend of the workers.


More importantly, though, this is just another step in the battle against the capitalists in Venezuela.

Let's get this straight; You are actually arguing that a reduction in workers living standards is 'another step in the battle against the capitalists in Venezuela'. I bet they can't wait for more steps like this. Workers reviving a lower minimum wage increase than the inflation increase actually helps the bosses make money.


I assume you mean "not battling against the capitalists",

No, may be it is unclear but I meant them to refer to 'attacks on the working class'.


Chavez is mobilizing working-class forces to expropriate the enemies of the Venezuelan workers.

The workers are not expropriating anything. The (capitalist) state is.


What "attacks on the working class" has Chavez organized?

He has presided over an decrease in workers living standards. The state is not neutral. It is an organ of class domination:

"Furthermore, the incomes of the 'working poor' have fallen by 15.3% in real terms and 34.8% relative to national wealth, and this in a growing economy where the richest 3% are accruing the lions share of the gains,"

See this post above: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1655979&postcount=40


but remember, his executive has been the express enemy of the capitalist class since he took office; again, just because the class struggle in Venezuela isn't as perfectly clear-cut as you want it to be changes nothing.

It is perfectly clear cut. You just seem to have difficulty recognising which side of it the state is on.

Devrim

[manic expression]

We got a below inflation pay rise from our boss this year. Sure rather below inflation than nothing at all, but at least I don't try to paint my boss as a friend of the workers.
Is your boss organizing the expropriation of price-gouging businesses? This question, among many others, divides your boss from Chavez precisely because one is a capitalist and the other is not.


Let's get this straight; You are actually arguing that a reduction in workers living standards is 'another step in the battle against the capitalists in Venezuela'. I bet they can't wait for more steps like this. Workers reviving a lower minimum wage increase than the inflation increase actually helps the bosses make money.
No, let's really get this straight: You don't think the events in Venezuela today are examples of class warfare?


No, may be it is unclear but I meant them to refer to 'attacks on the working class'.
The "them" referred most logically to the workers (the only specified object in that clause), but you said "not battling against them", which would contradict the first part of that sentence. I got what you meant, though, so it's no problem.


The workers are not expropriating anything. The (capitalist) state is.
You haven't quantified that important parenthetical conclusion.


He has presided over an decrease in workers living standards. The state is not neutral. It is an organ of class domination:
That does not denote the allegiance of the executive. Why would you think it does? Workers' living standards decreased over the entire course of the Paris Commune, too. The problem is that you assume Chavez is a capitalist, but you do nothing to prove this in any way, whereas the events that are presently playing out strongly show that the executive is an ally of the Venezuelan workers. The aforementioned difference between your boss and Chavez is only one example.

[cyu]

You certainly have strange politics for an anarchist.

I don't see why it's so strange. If the government has the right to use weapons, then anarchists claim that right for everyone. If the government has the right to issue money, then anarchists claim that right for everyone.


I can't see this happening at all though, and wouldn't be in favour of it if it did anyway. Workers can not destroy capitalism by setting up banks.

Proudhon (famous anarchist, in case you haven't heard of him) tried to set up worker-controlled banks. However, what's described at http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1653828&postcount=31 isn't a bank at all. A bank is a place that stores money (and possibly loans it out). A place that issues money is not the same thing - it's not like people open up bank accounts at a farmer's organization and then withdraw anything. Instead, the farmers / workers issue money that represent what they've produced, to be used as currency - a currency that is light and compact enough to carry in your wallet, and yet does not suffer from inflation when it is backed by real goods the workers have produced.


In general the lowering of inflation is brought about by mass unemployement and impoverishment of those remaining in jobs

So do you have your own stats about unemployment? From http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/5084 - "Unemployment here increased by 0.6% last year from 7.4% in 2008 to 8%. This is not a good thing, but relative to other countries, is minor."


meaning that the oil-rent bonanza of high oil prices is fuelling a concentration of wealth in the country's richest 3%. Furthermore, the incomes of the 'working poor' have fallen by 15.3% in real terms and 34.8% relative to national wealth, and this in a growing economy where the richest 3% are accruing the lions share of the gains

Do you believe the folks at http://www.bulletproofretirement.com are more or less in favor of the capitalist class than those at http://www.venezuelanalysis.com ? In any case, I'm all for equalizing spending power. See Demand is not measured in units of people, it is measured in units of money (http://everything2.com/title/Demand+is+not+measured+in+units+of+people%252C+it+ is+measured+in+units+of+money).

[Devrim]

I don't see why it's so strange. If the government has the right to use weapons, then anarchists claim that right for everyone. If the government has the right to issue money, then anarchists claim that right for everyone.

If the government has the 'right' to bomb civilians, do you claim that right for everyone too?

The vast majority of anarchism today is 'libertarian communism'. The anarcho-syndicalists certainly are:


Revolutionary unionism, basing itself on the class struggle, aims to unite all workers in combative economic organizations, that fight to free themselves from the double yoke of capital and the State. Its goal is the reorganization of social life on the basis of Libertarian Communism via the revolutionary action of the working class.

Workers issuing their own money is directly opposed to this.


Proudhon (famous anarchist, in case you haven't heard of him) tried to set up worker-controlled banks.

Proudhon was a mutualist. Anarchists today aren't.


]So do you have your own stats about unemployment? From http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/5084 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/5084) - "Unemployment here increased by 0.6% last year from 7.4% in 2008 to 8%. This is not a good thing, but relative to other countries, is minor."

Which is higher than, for example, the US where people are talking about the return of mass unemployment.


Do you believe the folks at http://www.bulletproofretirement.com (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.bulletproofretirement.com) are more or less in favor of the capitalist class than those at http://www.venezuelanalysis.com (http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/) ?

Certainly no less than them. Venezuela is a capitalist state, and those at Venezuelanalysis are its open political apologists. The retirement site, on the other hand, is a site where people look for investment advice. They are just providing statistics, and making no political analysis whatsoever. The analysis was done by a friend of ours.

Devrim

[BobKKKindle$]

You haven't quantified that important parenthetical conclusion.At what point did Venezuela's state apparatus change from being a bourgeois state, then, given that, as far as I can tell, the basic structure of the state - the existence of a presidency, the separation of executive and legislative functions, the absence of a system of direct recall and instruction for elected representatives, the atomizing impact of the bourgeois electoral process, for example - has remained the same? Or do you think the class character of a state only depends on what kind of people control it, and that the transition to socialism need not involve the overthrow of the state as it currently exists?


The problem is that you assume Chavez is a capitalistOf course Chavez isn't a capitalist, at least not in the sense that he owns part of the means of production - I don't think so, anyway. Except insofar as the Venezuelan state is one big capitalist corporation, and Chavez is in charge of that state. Then again, the same could probably be said of Gordon Brown. What makes Chavez an enemy of the working class and someone who can justifiably be described as part of the ruling class is the fact that he's the leader of a bourgeois state - this doesn't mean that he doesn't sympathize with the struggles of the working class, but what makes the state in capitalist society a bourgeois state is not the class position or the political views of the people who control it, but its basic structure, and the fact that it needs to recognize the class interests of the bourgeoisie in order to guarantee its own existence and protect the interests of the people who run it. This is what Marx's 'Eighteenth Brumaire' is all about - Marx wants to show that the state can have some degree of autonomy and even be captured by populist leaders, but that its autonomy is also limited by the interests of the ruling class of the society it governs, and that, when class struggle becomes intense and capitalism's internal laws of motion impose themselves, the state will fall down on the side of the bourgeoisie.

[Devrim]

Is your boss organizing the expropriation of price-gouging businesses? This question, among many others, divides your boss from Chavez precisely because one is a capitalist and the other is not.

My boss is to small to, but certainly he would like to take over other companies. This is what Chavez is doing, taking them under state control.


No, let's really get this straight: You don't think the events in Venezuela today are examples of class warfare?

There is class warfare in Venezuela. This is an example:


Three day strike at Venezuelan steelmaker

http://libcom.org/files/imagecache/article/images/news/ven.jpg (http://libcom.org/files/images/news/ven.jpg)


Workers launched a 72-hour strike at Venezuela's largest steelmaker, Ternium Sidor, late on Tuesday to protest stalled contract talks.



"The strike is for 72 hours and it started last night," said union leader Jose Rodriguez.
Workers have repeatedly shut Sidor, 60 percent owned by Argentina's Ternium, as part of demands for higher pay in what has been a 14-month dispute for a collective contract. The union on Monday called a 24-hour strike as part of the same dispute.
This is the sixth time this year that the plant, located in the southwest state of Bolivar, has been shut down as part of demands for higher pay. The union says it will not accept a daily salary increase of less than 53 Bs.F (US$24), however, the company says its final offer is 44Bs.F (US$20.5) per day.
An earlier protest by Sidor workers on March 14, in the midst of an 80 hour strike, was broken up violently by 120 functionaries of the Bolivar section of the National Guard and 60 state police. One union leader was wounded by gunfire and more than 50 people were arrested during the clashes.



The actions of the state are part of this class warfare too. They are just the other side of it.

So to repeat the question:


[Are you] actually arguing that a reduction in workers living standards is 'another step in the battle against the capitalists in Venezuela'[?]


whereas the events that are presently playing out strongly show that the executive is an ally of the Venezuelan workers.

Events like the state he is the head of shooting striking workers in the streets?

Devrim

[ls]

I don't see why it's so strange. If the government has the right to use weapons, then anarchists claim that right for everyone. If the government has the right to issue money, then anarchists claim that right for everyone.

That's pretty amusing, it makes no sense whatsoever so would you like to elaborate, on how you plan to get everyone to issue their own money?


Proudhon (famous anarchist, in case you haven't heard of him) tried to set up worker-controlled banks.

Proudhon has few things worthy to modern anarchism, most anarchists will attest to this, his ideas in many cases boiled down to dual support of the petit-bourgeois and the workers, whereas other famous anarchists, such as Kropotkin and his theory, ultimately supported the workers first and foremost.

[cyu]

If the government has the 'right' to bomb civilians, do you claim that right for everyone too?

Nope. But I would still claim the right to weapons for self-defense. Are you saying you are actually calling for a ban on all weapons like gun-control liberals?


Workers issuing their own money is directly opposed to this.

How so? Ultimately, I'd like to live in a society where people don't even care about money, where they can just show up in a "shop" / warehouse and simply pick up what they wanted without paying. However, as an intermediate step between the capitalism of today and a money-free society, workers issuing their own money is a way for them to break the hold that capitalists have on the current economic structure.

Sure, there are ways this intermediate step can be skipped, but I'm looking at it from the point of view of a leftist nation that wants to break out of the American / capitalist sphere of influence. One way to do it is to abandon all the mediums of exchange used by capitalists in their trade.


Proudhon was a mutualist. Anarchists today aren't.

Some are indeed mutualists, although I prefer the ones who are further left than mutualists.


Which is higher than, for example, the US where people are talking about the return of mass unemployment.

Really? Last I heard, the US already has double digit unemployment. Of course, how various nations calculate this number is very dubious, depending on what kind of political message they are trying to portray.


Venezuela is a capitalist state, and those at Venezuelanalysis are its open political apologists. The retirement site, on the other hand, is a site where people look for investment advice.

Venezuela could indeed be a crypto-capitalist state - is it truly trying to move in the direction of socialism or merely putting on an act? Well, you can't really say "it" when Venezuela has 26 million of people. Even if their head of state is going in one direction, you still can't guarantee that the people, his ministers, and the various factions in his party are all going in the same direction. So who do you believe those at Venezuelanalysis apologizing for? Chavez alone? Venezuela in general? Chavez's party?

Retirement in most capitalist countries relies on investments (assuming you're not stuck with the paltry social security of some nations, and have no money to invest). And we all know investments are merely a tool used by capitalists to live off the backs of the exploited. It's true that investments aren't only used by the wealthy class to live or retire. However, that's just part of the scam. The wealthy class reaps the vast majority of the benefits of the investment structure, while the vast majority of the population only gets the crumbs left over. So yeah, I'd say any website that promotes viewing financial investments positively is pro-capitalist.

[cyu]

That's pretty amusing, it makes no sense whatsoever so would you like to elaborate, on how you plan to get everyone to issue their own money?

See http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1653828&postcount=31 -

At the end of a season, a farmer may find that he has harvested 500 bushels of grain (or maybe a group of oil workers find that they have 500 barrels of oil). Then the farmer issues one paper note for each bushel (or the oil workers issue one paper note for each barrel), and then takes that note to spend in the local economy.

As long as the other members of the community know they can redeem the paper note for a bushel of wheat or barrel of oil at any time, then the paper note has value, and can be used as currency. When someone finally redeems the paper note for the grain / oil, then the note is destroyed.

If you feel paper backed only by barrels of oil or bushels of grain is not stable enough, then it's not hard to back it with a more diversified basket of goods. It would be similar to investing in various index funds - some baskets of goods may try to mimic the consumer price index - other baskets may be more focused on the energy sector or the construction materials sector.


Proudhon has few things worthy to modern anarchism, most anarchists will attest to this, his ideas in many cases boiled down to dual support of the petit-bourgeois and the workers, whereas other famous anarchists, such as Kropotkin and his theory, ultimately supported the workers first and foremost.

Don't assume I like Proudhon more than Kropotkin. Don't assume I've even read either of their work beyond a few paragraphs here and there. Personally, I would rather read Rudolf Rocker's writing, but who has time, what with keeping up with all the news and arguing on revleft.com? =]

[ls]

See http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1653828&postcount=31 -

At the end of a season, a farmer may find that he has harvested 500 bushels of grain (or maybe a group of oil workers find that they have 500 barrels of oil). Then the farmer issues one paper note for each bushel (or the oil workers issue one paper note for each barrel), and then takes that note to spend in the local economy.

As long as the other members of the community know they can redeem the paper note for a bushel of wheat or barrel of oil at any time, then the paper note has value, and can be used as currency. When someone finally redeems the paper note for the grain / oil, then the note is destroyed.

If you feel paper backed only by barrels of oil or bushels of grain is not stable enough, then it's not hard to back it with a more diversified basket of goods. It would be similar to investing in various index funds - some baskets of goods may try to mimic the consumer price index - other baskets may be more focused on the energy sector or the construction materials sector.

This sounds like an utter recipe for disaster, sorry but this makes absolutely no sense. Don't you think people can fake paper notes pretty easily, unless you plough a lot of technology into making them foolproof? Do you think that this could work on any national scale? When have anarchists done this before (and when they have, like in Ukraine it was a disaster) successfully?

[Devrim]

Cyu, I am not at all interested in disccussing your bizarre ideas about workers issuing their own money. As last time we discussed, I suggest you contact some real Anarcho-syndicalists, for example SolFed, the UK IWA/AIT section, and discuss with them.

I do want to comment on the things that you say that relate to the point though.


Really? Last I heard, the US already has double digit unemployment. Of course, how various nations calculate this number is very dubious, depending on what kind of political message they are trying to portray.

Yes, you are right. The US seems to have unemployment of 10% now. I was using an site, which doesn't seem to have been updated: http://www.indexmundi.com/

Of course this number, similar to inflation statistics is often not related that closely to reality. This applies in Venezuela too.


Venezuela could indeed be a crypto-capitalist state - is it truly trying to move in the direction of socialism or merely putting on an act? Well, you can't really say "it" when Venezuela has 26 million of people. Even if their head of state is going in one direction, you still can't guarantee that the people, his ministers, and the various factions in his party are all going in the same direction. So who do you believe those at Venezuelanalysis apologizing for? Chavez alone? Venezuela in general? Chavez's party?

No Venezuela is a capitalist state. Nothing 'crypto' about it. There is nothing socialist about it at all beyond a little rhetoric. When I say it I mean the Venezuelan state, which is capitalist.


Retirement in most capitalist countries relies on investments (assuming you're not stuck with the paltry social security of some nations, and have no money to invest). And we all know investments are merely a tool used by capitalists to live off the backs of the exploited. It's true that investments aren't only used by the wealthy class to live or retire. However, that's just part of the scam. The wealthy class reaps the vast majority of the benefits of the investment structure, while the vast majority of the population only gets the crumbs left over. So yeah, I'd say any website that promotes viewing financial investments positively is pro-capitalist.

I remember as a very young man asking an older worker why he read the 'Financial Times'. He replied that it is the paper that the bourgeoisie base their investments on, and they tend not to lie so much.

Devrim

[chebol]

Devrim wrote:


No Venezuela is a capitalist state. Nothing 'crypto' about it.

Correct. This is - in fact - a point which which Chavez keeps making over and over again, highlighting the weakness of socialist revolutionaries in Venezuela and the lack of organisation of the workers' movement and stressing the need for better political clarity and stronger organisation against Capital.

Whether you think he's doing any good in this is beside the point. Unlike (far too) many "chavistas", he's actually calling it how it is.


There is nothing socialist about it at all beyond a little rhetoric.

About the state? Perhaps not, except that the Chavez government is a "workers' and peasants government", replete with as many contradictions as you can point a stick at. But for all the talk of socialism, and the concrete, if small, steps taken in that direction, yes, the state remains capitalist.


I remember as a very young man asking an older worker why he read the 'Financial Times'. He replied that it is the paper that the bouroise base their investments on, and they tend not to lie so much.

A wise move. The only paper I read every day is the Australian Financial Review - the capitalists regularly call it how it is, and let slip some useful information too.

Here, however, I disagree:


those at Venezuelanalysis are its open political apologists

Those at Venezuelanalyis are a mixture of apologists for the Venezuelan state, apologists for Chavez (a slightly kind of different creature), and genuine revolutionaries, including several close friends of mine.

Similarly:


vents like the state he is the head of shooting striking workers in the streets?

misses the point. Chavez is the head of a government which - generally speaking - claims to be (and largely is, if we disregard the opportunist forces) on the side of workers and peasants. He is head of state in name only, and so long as Venezuela is a capitalist state (which I believe we agree it is), he does not "head" the state in the sense you are trying to imply.

The police, large sections of the army, the judiciary, the church, the bureaucracy, important sectors of the economy, and elements of the government itself remain in the hands of pro-capitalist forces.

All of which makes supporting the struggle there - and Chavez too, for that matter - incredibly important at the moment. Capital is getting worried in Venezuela, and is preparing a political comeback.

[cyu]

Don't you think people can fake paper notes pretty easily

Same thing happens in banks in your society, doesn't it? It's not like they even have to print fake paper notes, it's just numbers on computers. Pushing a number up in a computer database would be a piece of cake.


Do you think that this could work on any national scale?

The point is not to accumulate paper notes. The point is to use the paper notes to facilitate trade. In a leftist society, accumulation wouldn't be the goal at all - except in broard terms, such as accumulating the ability (means of production) to produce things for the people in society.

Excerpt from http://www.infoshop.org/rants/yu1.html

However, be warned that these notes are still only as good as the institutions that issue them. Either you trust that they can always be redeemed, or you redeem them as soon as it is convenient. This is especially true of money you receive from other nations that is supposedly backed in the same way. Distance makes people bolder and less hesitant to break promises. Ultimately, however, convenience would probably mean you will place your trust in an organization of like minded people who will help each other ensure that what you have is really what you have - although you should make sure there are alternatives should you decide to change your mind.

People can probably be trusted when times are easy and when prosperity reigns, but when times are tough, promises are much easier to break than the laws of survival. This is what makes self-reliance of an economy important. This is why local industry and agriculture should be protected. Productively ability is the real source of wealth of the nation.

However, natural disasters also occur. While the world as a whole may be fairly stable, the area around you is much more prone to random fluctuations of climate and geology. Thus self-reliance is not the entirety of a secure economy, but merely the supporting structure. The secondary source of security is prosperity in other geographical locations. The more prosperous others are, the more likely they will come to your aid in times of trouble. The more they have to thank you for their prosperity, the more likely they will come to your aid. Again, merely being creditors to their debt is not enough. Nations are sovereign, whether anarchist or authoritarian. They can break their promises - they can ignore any legalistic claims to debt. It is the general goodwill that can be fostered between two nations or people that will be your salvation in case your own self-reliance fails.

In the end, captial flight isn't really capital flight. Real capital - the people, natural resources, and equipment needed to produce real goods - cannot be packed up in a bag when the capitalist skips town. They will require a lot of labor if they truly want to escape with real capital. What remains when the capitalists are gone are merely the people who are doing the work, and the means to do it.

[cyu]

I suggest you contact some real Anarcho-syndicalists

Dude, it's not like I chose anarcho-syndicalism as my religion and then feel obligated to follow every edict from their popes and holy-men. I merely call myself an anarcho-syndicalist because I consider it to most closely match what I support. If I find some other ideology that I consider to be a closer match, then I will change my label.


This applies in Venezuela too.

Indeed it does - I don't claim they wouldn't have the same motives to fudge their figures as any other nation.


No Venezuela is a capitalist state.

Obviously it's capitalist, since wealthy capitalists still own and control the mass media. The question is, are the people who claim they are anti-capitalist truly anti-capitalists? Or are they merely crypto-capitalists or something in between? Which direction (or directions) are they trying to push society? How far are they willing to push it before they force others to stop? This is why I support democratizing their media (employee and community control) to help ensure pro-capitalists lose their iron grip in the battle of ideas.


He replied that it is the paper that the bourgeoisie base their investments on, and they tend not to lie so much.

People do not like cognitive dissonance in the things they read. Thus their own publications would be filled with self-justifications and self-rationalizations. They want to try to convince themselves that what they are doing is good for humanity, even when their conscience and subconcious tells them otherwise. It is vital for their own psychological health. Reading a pro-capitalist publication for capitalists is like attending many religious services. Part of the goal is ensure you stay within the religion. The other part is to ensure their minions (who are merely pro-capitalist, but not capitalists themselves) remain loyal to the real capitalists.

[Devrim]

Dude, it's not like I chose anarcho-syndicalism as my religion and then feel obligated to follow every edict from their popes and holy-men. I merely call myself an anarcho-syndicalist because I consider it to most closely match what I support. If I find some other ideology that I consider to be a closer match, then I will change my label.

Whatever, it just so happens that the things that you come out with have nothing to do with the ideas of any anarcho--syndicalists that I have ever met, and I think the vast majority of them would be embarrassed to be connected to these ideas even by some very tenuous association.

Devrim

[Devrim]

About the state? Perhaps not, except that the Chavez government is a "workers' and peasants government", replete with as many contradictions as you can point a stick at. But for all the talk of socialism, and the concrete, if small, steps taken in that direction, yes, the state remains capitalist.

I think that a workers and peasant's government of a capitalist state is a contradiction in terms. The bourgeois state can not be made to serve the working class.


Those at Venezuelanalyis are a mixture of apologists for the Venezuelan state, apologists for Chavez (a slightly kind of different creature), and genuine revolutionaries, including several close friends of mine.

So basically people who you consider to be apologists, and a few you consider to be 'genuine revolutionaries' who I would probably consider to be apologists.


misses the point. Chavez is the head of a government which - generally speaking - claims to be (and largely is, if we disregard the opportunist forces) on the side of workers and peasants. He is head of state in name only, and so long as Venezuela is a capitalist state (which I believe we agree it is), he does not "head" the state in the sense you are trying to imply.

I don't know how much power Chavez has, but I would imagine that it is more than you seem to imply. However, what is the good of having what you refer to as a 'workers and peasants' government' if it can't even stop its own police from shooting down striking workers in the streets?


The police, large sections of the army, the judiciary, the church, the bureaucracy, important sectors of the economy, and elements of the government itself remain in the hands of pro-capitalist forces.

All of which makes supporting the struggle there - and Chavez too, for that matter - incredibly important at the moment. Capital is getting worried in Venezuela, and is preparing a political comeback.

I think that Chavez is a 'pro-capitalist force' though. Capital doesn't need a comeback in Venezuela because it has never been 'out', and what you call the struggle is in reality a fight between two different bourgoies factions about how to run the state.

Devrim

[pranabjyoti]

@ Chebol,
Problem with most of the people here is that, they call themselves Marxist of follower of Marx but view everything in a very eclectic manner. Most of them here thought that people i.e. workers and peasants of Venezuela had gained some solid ground and that means the bourgeoisie had lost all its power because they were thrown out of state power and capturing state power means the end of all class struggle. They are just unable to understand that bourgeoisie and their allies have a long history of rule and they know much better than workers and peasants how to capture state power.
If coming to power of a workers and peasants government means end of class struggle then coming to power of a bourgeoisie government too means the end of class struggle, because one of the side had own power and class struggle has ended. But, we know well that this is not the fact.
If workers and peasants stay and fight in a bourgeoisie controlled society and class struggle can continue, then the opposite can certainly be true and in my opinion more fierce. Bourgeoisie and their allies will know that their end is nearing and so they will fight with every tooth and nail to comeback.
And please, don't argue with them with Marx and Lenin, you will certainly be marked as an old, authoritarian and ORTHODOX Marxist-Leninist.

[chebol]

Devrim, your response exposes precisely why taking too doctrinaire an approach can be entirely counterproductive for understanding the balance of forces, and the dynamics involved in class struggle.

You write:

I think that a workers and peasant's government of a capitalist state is a contradiction in terms. The bourgeois state can not be made to serve the working class.Two things. First, it is not a contradiction in terms unless you make the mistake of conflating the government with the state as a whole.

Nevertheless, no such government can exist without massive contradictions in its relationship with the proletariat, the economy, and the capitalist state. These contradictions must be played out in favour of either Capital or the workers, and that very struggle has been unfolding - in a confused and inchoate manner - in Venezuela over the past 12 years.

Secondly, noone serious is claiming that the bourgeois state can be made to serve the working class. Chavez isn't, and I am not. The institution of government, however, can be (temporarily) captured by pro-working class forces.

The problem with Venezuela is that the working class itself is only now awaking from an historical period of weakness and inactivity, while pro-capitalist forces threaten to further infiltrate and corrupt the "Chavista" government and movement (a threat, I should point out, that Chavez, and leading revolutionaries are well aware of, but are struggling to overcome).


So basically people who you consider to be apologists, and a few you consider to be 'genuine revolutionaries' who I would probably consider to be apologists.Perhaps, but such arrogance does noone any favours. Comrade...


I don't know how much power Chavez has, but I would imagine that it is more than you seem to imply.Actually, less than you think, a fact probably further complicated by the fact that you fail to understand Chavez' role in pushing the revolution forward (rather than as a "pro-capitalist force").

The man can't be everywhere at once, does not have a genuine revolutionary party behind him (and the one that he does have is as full of opportunists and people with an entirely confused idea of what socialism as you could imagine).

More importantly, given his unique role within yet against the capitalist state, Chavez is increasingly surrounded by forces who seek to "civilise" the Bolivarian revolution to suit their own ends - ie representatives of the Boliburguesia. They, in turn, make it incredibly difficult for genuine revolutionaries to work closely with Chavez, isolating him, and leading him to make rather odd decisions from time to time (on top of his own, very unique, character).


I think that Chavez is a 'pro-capitalist force' though. Capital doesn't need a comeback in Venezuela because it has never been 'out', and what you call the struggle is in reality a fight between two different bourgoies factions about how to run the state.Again you miss the point. Thereis indeed a struggle between two factions of the bourgeoisie, one of which has tacked itself onto the Chavez bandwagon. But you are wrong to conflate this with Chavez himself, and with the genuine revolutionary chavista movement which exists throughout Venezuela.

What you need to understand - if you really want to get a hold on the Venezuelan reality - is the organisational and political weakness of working class forces (of all kinds) in Venezuela, and that - despite his weaknesses and rather blatant contradictions - Chavez is a vital force (at the moment, and for the past decade) in strengthening that movement, taken as a whole.

[manic expression]

My boss is to small to, but certainly he would like to take over other companies. This is what Chavez is doing, taking them under state control.
You didn't answer the question, though, because your position flies in the face of your own example. Is your boss mobilizing working-class forces to expropriate price-gouging businesses?

No, he isn't. Your comparison is simply absurd.


There is class warfare in Venezuela. This is an example:
:rolleyes: Too bad you didn't do your homework. This is what ended that situation:

President Hugo Chavez has set a precedent that emboldens workers and worries businesses by nationalizing Venezuela's largest steel maker in the middle of a sometimes violent labor dispute.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/3357


The actions of the state are part of this class warfare too. They are just the other side of it.
You got the first part right, but it's a shame you can't see the facts because of your puritan-style blinders. See above.


Events like the state he is the head of shooting striking workers in the streets?
You mean events like expropriating the country's largest steelmaker in order to empower workers. Yes, just like that. Have fun ignoring Chavez's actions and policies, revolutionaries are busy doing more important things.

[cyu]

it just so happens that the things that you come out with have nothing to do with the ideas of any anarcho--syndicalists that I have ever met

Things I support about anarcho-syndicalism:
1. Employee control of the workplace
2. Directly taking control, by employees, rather than waiting for government action or buying from capitalists
3. The decentralized nature of anarchism in general as a means to prevent oppression

As for various marco economic policies I support, you're absolutely right. They are not from any anarcho-syndicalist platform I've encountered. I don't see how that's relevant anyway. If you feel there's another ideology that includes both the 3 points above and the macro economic policies I support, then by all means point me their way. If you don't, am I to be forced into only existing ideologies? The point of memetic evolution is to take the memes you like, throw out the ones you don't, and try to find replacements for any memes you feel aren't good enough.


I think the vast majority of them would be embarrassed to be connected to these ideas even by some very tenuous association.

How so? If you don't consider yourself an anarcho-syndicalist, why don't you just speak from the standpoint of a leftist. If another person proposed ideas like these and claimed to be a leftist, what would make you feel embarrassed about those ideas? If you have valid criticisms rather than vague ones, I would be more than happy to hear them.

[Devrim]

:rolleyes: Too bad you didn't do your homework. This is what ended that situation:

President Hugo Chavez has set a precedent that emboldens workers and worries businesses by nationalizing Venezuela's largest steel maker in the middle of a sometimes violent labor dispute.

You mean events like expropriating the country's largest steelmaker in order to empower workers. Yes, just like that. Have fun ignoring Chavez's actions and policies, revolutionaries are busy doing more important things.

There is nothing intrinsically socialist or pro-working class about nationalisation. Ask any working who is employed in a nationalised industry. Personally I have worked in two, as a postman for five years, and a hospital porter for two years. There is nothing at all socialist about them.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Things I support about anarcho-syndicalism:
1. Employee control of the workplace
2. Directly taking control, by employees, rather than waiting for government action or buying from capitalists
3. The decentralized nature of anarchism in general as a means to prevent oppression

But I don't think that these are the central points of anarcho-syndicalism at all. It is a bit like me saying that I am a christian because both myself and the priest agree that people should have to work on Sundays in my case if only because I need a day off.


How so? If you don't consider yourself an anarcho-syndicalist, why don't you just speak from the standpoint of a leftist. If another person proposed ideas like these and claimed to be a leftist, what would make you feel embarrassed about those ideas? If you have valid criticisms rather than vague ones, I would be more than happy to hear them.

Actually, consider ourselves to be communist, not part of the left, or leftists. To make a general, if unfortunately vague, critisism of the arguments you put forward, you seem to believe that workers can take over the economy, and subvert it for their own use piece by piece. I don't think that this is possible, and nor do anarcho-syndicalists.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Devrim, your response exposes precisely why taking too doctrinaire an approach can be entirely counterproductive for understanding the balance of forces, and the dynamics involved in class struggle.

I don't think it is at all 'doctrinaire'. It is about genuinely trying to understand what is going on and analysing the dynamics. Of course, on a historical level those who accuse people of being 'doctrinaire' are generally guilty of opportunism.;)


Secondly, noone serious is claiming that the bourgeois state can be made to serve the working class. Chavez isn't, and I am not. The institution of government, however, can be (temporarily) captured by pro-working class forces.

I think that the two parts of this statement are contradictory. If the state can't be made to serve the working class how can the forces in charge of it be pro-working class'. What tends to happen in these situations is that these forces, whatever their intentions, end up serving the bourgeoise.


What you need to understand - if you really want to get a hold on the Venezuelan reality - is the organisational and political weakness of working class forces (of all kinds) in Venezuela, and that - despite his weaknesses and rather blatant contradictions - Chavez is a vital force (at the moment, and for the past decade) in strengthening that movement, taken as a whole.

I think that I do understand the weakness of the working class in Venezuela. I am not the one talking about there being a revolution there, am I?

Nor do I think that it is possible for one individual to substitue themselves for the class. Only the working class itself can make socialism.

Devrim

[chebol]

Devrim wrote:


Of course, on a historical level those who accuse people of being 'doctrinaire' are generally guilty of opportunism.;)So, when did you stop beating your wife...?

And again Devrim, you show your inability to read:



Quote:
Originally Posted by chebol:
Secondly, noone serious is claiming that the bourgeois state can be made to serve the working class. Chavez isn't, and I am not. The institution of government, however, can be (temporarily) captured by pro-working class forces.

Devrim:
I think that the two parts of this statement are contradictory. If the state can't be made to serve the working class how can the forces in charge of it be pro-working class'. What tends to happen in these situations is that these forces, whatever their intentions, end up serving the bourgeoisie.No mate, they're not contradictory at all, as I pointed out very clearly (or so I thought) above. The only way in which you could think so is if you make the mistake of conflating government with state. Which means you *really* don't understand Marxism.

Seriously, comrade- raincheck on the ideology, stat!

[Devrim]

Of course I understand the difference between the government and the state. However, if the state can't be used by the working class, it seems quite strange to think that its executive organ can be.

This doesn't mean that there can not be conflict within the state, or between the parts of the state and the government. We have seen particularly vicious ones played out in this country over the past few years.

If the state can not be used by the working class though, it logically follows that its executive organ can't either.

Devrim

[chebol]

If the state can not be used by the working class though, it logically follows that its executive organ can't either.

No. No it doesn't. And Marx and Engels knew better too...

Seriously, back to the bookshelf and get a grip.

[pranabjyoti]

No. No it doesn't. And Marx and Engels knew better too...
Seriously, back to the bookshelf and get a grip.
Man, most of the people here are armchair revolutionaries and they are very good in denouncing and finding "flaws". As they were and are scarecly engaged in real life revolutionary activity, they can not understand that by making a worker and peasant supported government doesn't mean all the influential supporters of the past i.e. the bureaucrats, judiciary and armed personnel (both police and military) just CAN NOT change overnight and a very very long fight is necessary to uproot them. But, that's a hard task, denouncing someone is a much easier way to prove one a "real revolutionary".
Hey, perhaps you can be marked as orthodox, authoritarian Marxist by advising them for going to book shelf again.

[manic expression]

There is nothing intrinsically socialist or pro-working class about nationalisation. Ask any working who is employed in a nationalised industry. Personally I have worked in two, as a postman for five years, and a hospital porter for two years. There is nothing at all socialist about them.
Interesting. Just a few posts ago, Chavez was a worker-murdering dictator. Now, he's "[not] intrinsically socialist". Funny how quickly your tone changes when the facts are revealed.

More to your newest point, though, there is something very socialist and pro-working class about nationalization in the circumstances of your example. Chavez expropriated that steelmaker because they were refusing to listen to their workers' demands; what is your problem with this, exactly? What is your problem with expropriating a capitalist business when they explicitly oppose workers' right to organize and demand improvement? You have failed to explain this time and again.

A hospital and a postal service, both in industries that are typically run by capitalist states because of efficiency and convenience (due to the bourgeois theory of "natural monopolies"), have nothing to do with an expropriated steelmaker during a violent labor dispute. Your newest comparison is just as absurd as your previous one.

[KC]

Edit

[cyu]

I don't think that these are the central points of anarcho-syndicalism at all. It is a bit like me saying that I am a christian because both myself and the priest agree that people should have to work on Sundays in my case if only because I need a day off.

So if you're the expert on anarcho-syndicalism, you tell me the core beliefs of anarcho-syndicalism. Honestly I have no clue what you think anarcho-syndicalism means and I'm very curious.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism#Features

"The basic principles of anarcho-syndicalism are workers' solidarity, direct action, and workers' self-management."

Seems like that's all covered in my points 1 and 2 above.


you seem to believe that workers can take over the economy, and subvert it for their own use piece by piece. I don't think that this is possible

Do you believe you can walk from your computer to the bathroom, step by step? Do you believe you can eat a loaf of bread, slice by slice? Do you believe you can build a house, brick by brick?

It's not like you can take one giant step to the bathroom unless your computer is right next to it. It's not like you can stuff the entire loaf into your mouth unless it's a tiny loaf or you have a huge mouth. It's not like the entire house is just going to fall out of the sky.

Maybe I'm just misunderstanding your criticism. Care to clarify it?

[Devrim]

Interesting. Just a few posts ago, Chavez was a worker-murdering dictator. Now, he's "[not] intrinsically socialist". Funny how quickly your tone changes when the facts are revealed.

I don't think the tone has changed at all. I still believe that Chavez is the anti-working class head of a capitalist state. What I was pointing out there is that nationalisation isn't intrinsically socialist, not commenting on Chavez.


More to your newest point, though, there is something very socialist and pro-working class about nationalization in the circumstances of your example. Chavez expropriated that steelmaker because they were refusing to listen to their workers' demands; what is your problem with this, exactly? What is your problem with expropriating a capitalist business when they explicitly oppose workers' right to organize and demand improvement? You have failed to explain this time and again

I don't think it of any real importance whether a business is in state or private hands. I would imagine that attacks upon workers living standards will continue.


A hospital and a postal service, both in industries that are typically run by capitalist states because of efficiency and convenience (due to the bourgeois theory of "natural monopolies"), have nothing to do with an expropriated steelmaker during a violent labor dispute. Your newest comparison is just as absurd as your previous one.

The comparison was that every worker who works in a nationalised industry knows that there is nothing socialist about it at all, and that they still attack workers living conditions.


First, do you know the terms of the nationalization, or any of the details?

Second, do you know the current working conditions of the employees of this company after nationalization?

This is a crucial point, but then I have been talking about real things such as workers' living standards throughout this thread whereas others have been merely insisting about Marx and Engels advocating this, or the socialist nature of nationalisation.

All of the economic statistics show that the Chavez government is the executive of a capitalist state, which is making massive attacks on the working class. However, some are blinded to this by the fact that the state their uses a little leftist rhetoric.

Devrim

[Devrim]

So if you're the expert on anarcho-syndicalism, you tell me the core beliefs of anarcho-syndicalism. Honestly I have no clue what you think anarcho-syndicalism means and I'm very curious.

I'm not that much of an expert on anarcho-syndicalism. I do know and discuss with anarcho-syndicalists though, and used to be a member of the anarcho-syndicalist organisation.


From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho...alism#Features (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism#Features)

"The basic principles of anarcho-syndicalism are workers' solidarity, direct action, and workers' self-management."

Seems like that's all covered in my points 1 and 2 above.

I think it is OK to use Wiki, but in this case I am going to go to the horses mouth (my emphasis):


1. Revolutionary unionism, basing itself on the class struggle, aims to unite all workers in combative economic organizations, that fight to free themselves from the double yoke of capital and the State. Its goal is the reorganization of social life on the basis of Libertarian Communism via the revolutionary action of the working class. Since only the economic organizations of the proletariat are capable of achieving this objective, revolutionary unionism addresses itself to workers in their capacity as producers, creators of social wealth, to take root and develop amongst them, in opposition to the modern workers’ parties, which it declares are incapable of the economic reorganization of society.

The goal is communism. 'Direct action' is not seen as a principle, but as a method.


Do you believe you can walk from your computer to the bathroom, step by step? Do you believe you can eat a loaf of bread, slice by slice? Do you believe you can build a house, brick by brick?

It's not like you can take one giant step to the bathroom unless your computer is right next to it. It's not like you can stuff the entire loaf into your mouth unless it's a tiny loaf or you have a huge mouth. It's not like the entire house is just going to fall out of the sky.

Maybe I'm just misunderstanding your criticism. Care to clarify it?

I think that Marx explains it well when he talks about the development of class society and how the borgoisie was able to build up its economic base within society, but that this isn't a possibility open to the working class. It is a part of Marx that anarchists are, in general, in agreement with. When anarcho-syndicalists' talk about "building the new society in the shell of the old", they are talking about workers organisations, not businesses.

Devrim

[robbo203]

I don't think the tone has changed at all. I still believe that Chavez is the anti-working class head of a capitalist state. What I was pointing out there is that nationalisation isn't intrinsically socialist, not commenting on Chavez.

I don't think it of any real importance whether a business is in state or private hands. I would imagine that attacks upon workers living standards will continue.



You are quite correct in saying this. The state capitalist Left dont understand what the state is about or indeed what capitalism is about and are fundamentally confused on this as on so many other things.

Engels comment from Socialism Utopian and Scientific is pertinent here:

The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine, the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of the productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage workers - proletarians. The capitalist relationship is not done away with.

[Devrim]

You are quite correct in saying this. The state capitalist Left dont understand what the state is about or indeed what capitalism is about and are fundamentally confused on this as on so many other things.

Engels comment from Socialism Utopian and Scientific is pertinent here:

The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine, the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of the productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage workers - proletarians. The capitalist relationship is not done away with.

Yes, it is something that the left really has no idea about. Privatisation is often used as a way to attack workers, but only in the way that reorganisation in general is used as an opportunity to attack workers. It also happens the other way round too, for example as at Northern Rock:


Job losses
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Northern_Rock_House_2.JPG)



At the end of July 2008 Northern Rock announced the first set of redundancies; 800 staff were made compulsorily redundant and a further 500 staff left under a voluntary redundancy programme.[85] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalisation_of_Northern_Rock#cite_note-84) It is also aiming to halve its £100 billion loan book by either selling off mortgage assets to other lenders or by declining to offer new mortgages to existing customers.[86] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalisation_of_Northern_Rock#cite_note-85)


Devrim

[Uppercut]

I think a sound monitary policy is in order for Venezuela. You can't print too much money out of thin air (like we do here in the U.S.) I don't know everything about economics although I passed my econ class with flying colors.

I wonder how Chairman Mao stabilized the Chinese economy through economic planning. I don't know all the details but I have faith that there is a way to bring inflation under control under a planned economy. It's been done before and the USSR could avoid inflation for years in it's early years.

[manic expression]

I don't think the tone has changed at all. I still believe that Chavez is the anti-working class head of a capitalist state. What I was pointing out there is that nationalisation isn't intrinsically socialist, not commenting on Chavez.
The tone most certainly did change. Your first post on the subject came with provocative photos of workers being suppressed. After the truth came out that Chavez sided with the workers and expropriated that very company in the process, you could only say that nationalizations aren't always progressive, which as I demonstrated has little to do with that particular case. So yes, the tone did change and you are still backtracking from your previous assertions.


I don't think it of any real importance whether a business is in state or private hands. I would imagine that attacks upon workers living standards will continue.
So when a government sides with striking workers in a labor dispute and then expropriates the company in question, there is nothing of importance? Tell that to the striking workers. And once again, we see that you are backtracking and trying to hide behind the vague nature of the above quote.


The comparison was that every worker who works in a nationalised industry knows that there is nothing socialist about it at all, and that they still attack workers living conditions.
In this case, the nationalization was a step forward for workers living conditions because it struck a blow against their enemies. Are you denying that the steelmaker company didn't want to be nationalized? Are you denying that Chavez sided with the striking workers in this instance? Are you denying the fact that the labor dispute was a victory for the workers? I ask because your entire position boils down to running away from the naked facts.

[Devrim]

The tone most certainly did change. Your first post on the subject came with provocative photos of workers being suppressed. After the truth came out that Chavez sided with the workers and expropriated that very company in the process, you could only say that nationalizations aren't always progressive, which as I demonstrated has little to do with that particular case. So yes, the tone did change and you are still backtracking from your previous assertions.

I don't think that it did change. I didn't say 'always'. I said 'intrinsically', which means belonging to the nature of a thing. What amuses me most though is you have no disagrement with any of the figures that show that Chavez's government is presiding over attacks on working class living standards, and the best you can come up with is a perceived 'change of tone'.

I will take a 'tone' now that might seem a bit novel to you, where I answer people's questions instead of ignoring them and replying with another question instead:


Are you denying that the steelmaker company didn't want to be nationalized?

The demands of the workers at the start of the strike were about wages, working conditions, and permanent contacts, not for nationalisation. Also at the time of the strike the Venezuelan state was still part owner of the company with 20% of the shares. I don't claim to know what workers in another continent 'wanted', so the answer to that is I don't know, and I am not denying that it is possible.


Are you denying that Chavez sided with the striking workers in this instance?

Considering that he is at the head of a state whose armed forces shot down workers in the street, and as far as I know the workers got less than the minimum pay raise that their union said they would accept, 53 Bs.F, then yes I would deny this.


Are you denying the fact that the labor dispute was a victory for the workers?

I don't know the exact details of the new agreement, but I will write to our section in Venezuela and ask, but their demands certainly weren't all met. In that way you could certainly say it wasn't a clear victory.

Devrim

[KC]

Edit

[cyu]

The goal is communism.

Your point? I have no problem with economic equality. Do you feel that I'm against it for some reason?


When anarcho-syndicalists' talk about "building the new society in the shell of the old", they are talking about workers organisations, not businesses.

When employees control their workplaces, you don't see that as workers' organizations?

[Devrim]

Your point? I have no problem with economic equality. Do you feel that I'm against it for some reason?

My point is that the fundamental principle of anarcho-syndicalism is communism, not the things that you mentioned.


When employees control their workplaces, you don't see that as workers' organizations?

No, not at all. It may be the act of a workers' organisation, but it is not the organisation itself.

My point is that you can not run businesses on a socialist basis within a capitalist society. Just as you can't have socialism in one country, you certainly can't have it in one co-op.

Devrim

[manic expression]

I don't think that it did change.
You can think that all you like, it doesn't change the fact that you've backed away from your earlier rhetoric once the facts were shown.


The demands of the workers at the start of the strike were about wages, working conditions, and permanent contacts, not for nationalisation.
So if the strike ultimately ended in a working-class revolution, you would deny the benefits of that because that wasn't part of the initial demands?


Also at the time of the strike the Venezuelan state was still part owner of the company with 20% of the shares. I don't claim to know what workers in another continent 'wanted', so the answer to that is I don't know, and I am not denying that it is possible.
So why do you keep saying Chavez went against the workers when your final answer is "I don't know"? Is it because you already have a ready-made conception of Chavez, independent of the desires of Venezuelan workers? Is it because you keep citing a labor dispute, while ignoring how that very dispute ultimately ended with Chavez siding with the workers and smashing the capitalists? Is it because you simply don't know, but you want to bash Chavez and the Venezuelan workers anyway?


Considering that he is at the head of a state whose armed forces shot down workers in the street, and as far as I know the workers got less than the minimum pay raise that their union said they would accept, 53 Bs.F, then yes I would deny this.
So Chavez is directly responsible for everything the Venezuelan state does? The action of a soldier or policemen now defines the entire nature of Chavez and his actions? Does that make any sense?


I don't know the exact details of the new agreement, but I will write to our section in Venezuela and ask, but their demands certainly weren't all met. In that way you could certainly say it wasn't a clear victory.
:rolleyes: Do you even understand that many victories don't entail getting everything you want? In fact, oftentimes a victory means doing what you can, when you can do it. According to you, the October Revolution "wasn't a clear victory" because it didn't result in a classless society. Obviously, you don't understand what revolutions are made of, because you're a narrow-minded puritan who gets angry when reality doesn't match your imagination.

[cyu]

the fundamental principle of anarcho-syndicalism is communism, not the things that you mentioned

Would you care to explain to me why you feel what I support will not result in economic equality?


My point is that you can not run businesses on a socialist basis within a capitalist society.

What makes you believe that I'm calling for "socialist businesses in a capitalist society"?


Just as you can't have socialism in one country

Could you have socialism in one planet? If so, then why can't you have it in one country? Of course, this isn't to say that I'd be satisfied with getting rid of capitalism in just one country. That would be like saying an abolitionist would be satisfied with freeing just one slave.


you certainly can't have it in one co-op.

What if the co-op were the size of a planet?

[ls]

:rolleyes: Do you even understand that many victories don't entail getting everything you want? In fact, oftentimes a victory means doing what you can, when you can do it. According to you, the October Revolution "wasn't a clear victory" because it didn't result in a classless society. Obviously, you don't understand what revolutions are made of, because you're a narrow-minded puritan who gets angry when reality doesn't match your imagination.

According to him, the October Revolution was indeed a clear victory though.... This portion of your post indicates you do not understand what he believes in politically, at all. Seeing as the rest of your post is based on assumptions about what he believes in politically... and you got one of the most important things wrong, I would recommend you ask him what he does believe in. It would make the conversation much more interesting, it really does seem as if you don't understand his position, which is far more detailed and way more inclusive of workers' demands than you think.


Could you have socialism in one planet? If so, then why can't you have it in one country? Of course, this isn't to say that I'd be satisfied with getting rid of capitalism in just one country. That would be like saying an abolitionist would be satisfied with freeing just one slave.


What if the co-op were the size of a planet?

This just ignores what socialism in one country was, in the context of existing as a policy by the CPSU and why it occurred, also why it shouldn't happen again. But feel free to continue.

[cyu]

This just ignores what socialism in one country was


So what do you believe it was?



in the context of existing as a policy by the CPSU and why it occurred


Why do you think it occurred?


why it shouldn't happen again.

The reason capitalism shouldn't be allowed to exist is the same reason slavery shouldn't be allowed to exist and the same reason people shouldn't be allowed to rape others - it's a simple matter of fighting against oppression.

However, there's no intrinsic weakness to the political or economic structure of socialism that prevents it from existing in one country. Do you believe there is? If so, please list those weaknesses.

[NecroCommie]

there's no intrinsic weakness to the political or economic structure of socialism that prevents it from existing in one country. Do you believe there is? If so, please list those weaknesses.
Structurally perhaps no, but class war comes to mind.

But yeah, you own this debate. :lol: