Hugo chavez nationalises supermarket chain

[REDSOX]

It just gets more interesting in venezuela by the day http://www.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8464741.stm

[Comrade Gwydion]

Error 404 - Page not found

[IrishWorker]

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=116434&sectionid=351020704

[What Would Durruti Do?]

nice victory for the Venezuelan state. too bad the workers can't seem to do anything themselves

[Nolan]

nice victory for the Venezuelan state. too bad the workers can't seem to do anything themselves

Hey. Don't hurt Chavez's feelings.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Indeed, as said above, a good victory, but there does seem to be more of a Social Democratic type energy in Venezuela - for 'Old Labour' style policies of nationalisation, price controls and a large state - than revolutionary zeal whereby society is completely overhauled.

Still, a step in the right direction no doubt, and we shall see how the situation develops in the coming months, and whether Chavez's recent actions will benefit the working class.

[Nolan]

Indeed, as said above, a good victory, but there does seem to be more of a Social Democratic type energy in Venezuela - for 'Old Labour' style policies of nationalisation, price controls and a large state - than revolutionary zeal whereby society is completely overhauled.

Still, a step in the right direction no doubt, and we shall see how the situation develops in the coming months, and whether Chavez's recent actions will benefit the working class.

Since Chavez is simply an elected official in a capitalist country, he can't do too much legally without ending up like Allende. What he could do, however, (assuming he really wants Socialism) is give more legal power to those worker's councils they set up a while back, and declare martial law to deal with the inevitable capitalist reaction. He's a military man, the military is loyal to him for the most part. The bourgeois opposition in the government itself should be disposed of, and the remaining industries nationalized. Sorta like a coup from above. Then we can hopefully build Socialism from there.

To the ultra-idealists: yes, I know that wouldn't be a "legitimate" workers revolution in your book, but we have to settle for what we have. :)

[Kaze no Kae]

nice victory for the Venezuelan state. too bad the workers can't seem to do anything themselves
I wouldn't be so dismissive, the PSUV is a mass party, the Bolivarian Revolution is being led from the bottom, Chavez is just a spokesman. The workers are doing it for themselves, they're just using the state as their tool.


Indeed, as said above, a good victory, but there does seem to be more of a Social Democratic type energy in Venezuela - for 'Old Labour' style policies of nationalisation, price controls and a large state - than revolutionary zeal whereby society is completely overhauled.I will concede that it's definately a more social democratic than revolutionary mode of nationalisation, but they're also in the process of creating - among other things - local workers' councils and revolutionary militia.


What he could do, however, (assuming he really wants Socialism) is give more legal power to those worker's councils they set up a while back, and declare martial law to deal with the inevitable capitalist reaction. He's a military man, the military is loyal to him for the most part
As I understand it, the councils are steadily growing in power as they grow in confidence to challenge the established mayoral local governments. As for the reaction, martial law seems a bit extreme and would inevitably shove people who would otherwise support the Bolivarian Revolution towards the reactionary camp - the afforementioned revolutionary militia, on the other hand, would make counter-revolution very difficult indeed to pull off.

[Charles Xavier]

blank

[cb9's_unity]

Nationalization may be a good thing, but we shouldn't confuse it for real progress on the the road to socialism for the workers of Venezuela. History shows that nationalization can be used to slow the demand for real socialism. Workers may be pleased that a company is out of the hands of capitalists, but not being in capitalist hands doesn't necessarily mean a company is in workers hands. The Venezuelan state has not proven itself to be truly in the workers interests, and for this reasons the workers must still be skeptical on its actions.

Every socialists fear right now should be that the "socialist" majority in the Venezuelan congress will actually be an obstruction to real socialism. Reformers in a parliament are simply not a substitute for workers taking over factory's. If the workers put all of their trust into elected representatives they run the risk of becoming complacent with small reforms to the bourgeois state.

Regardless of ones views on Chavez, it is undeniable that capitalism and private property rights still exist in Venezuela. Being at the head of the capitalist state, the Venezuelan congress is currently the acting force protecting those bourgeois rights. Workers in Venezuela must realize that no matter how many company's are nationalized, as long as bourgeois property rights exist, they are not in power. Essentially they must realize that even if Chavez is the most well intentioned socialist on earth, in reality he is protecting bourgeois property rights and thus is not acting as a true ally of the proletariat.

Chavez must realize his own role within the Venezuelan state and actively work to increase the workers power instead of his own. However the workers must understand that men are unlikely to freely give up the power they are given. It is possible that Chavez will surprise us but we shouldn't expect it. Workers in Venezuela need to recognize that only people they can trust are themselves.

btw, I recognize this whole post was really clunky. Sorry for the poor writing.

[Joe_Germinal]

Nationalization may be a good thing, but we shouldn't confuse it for real progress on the the road to socialism for the workers of Venezuela. History shows that nationalization can be used to slow the demand for real socialism.

Indeed it does; however, the question here is whether Venezuelan history in the period of 1999-2010 shows that the reforms of the Chavez government are "slow[ing] the demand for real socialism."

When Chavez gained power with the overwhelming support of the working class in 1999, the biggest trade union federation was the CTV, a reformist organization allied with Venezuelan social democracy which agitated against genuine socialism, not for it. Today, the largest trade union federation is the UNT politically dominated by revolutionary socialists of various stripes. That is ideological progress made by a class whose confidence in their own power has been strengthened by their participation Chavez' reformism, not weakened by it.

Of course, it is a terrible tragedy that private property remains in Venezuela; however, if either the Chavez government or the organized working class abolished private property tomorrow we'd see Chile 1973 all over again, possibly worse. Either way, the march towards socialism, although currently too slow for some ultra-leftists, would end completely.

The Venezuelan working class is better organized and more revolutionary than ever before. The state is arming itself and developing international alliances to strengthen itself against the inevitable counter-revolution. The day will come when the Venezuelan proletariat is strong enough to overcome capitalism (unless this progress is reversed by the heroic adventurism so many leftists desire).

[cb9's_unity]

I certainly hope that the information you gave early in your post is correct. More revolutionary membership in unions is always a good thing. However 10 years of history in Venezuela should not be used to mask 100 years of history around the world.


Of course, it is a terrible tragedy that private property remains in Venezuela; however, if either the Chavez government or the organized working class abolished private property tomorrow we'd see Chile 1973 all over again, possibly worse. Either way, the march towards socialism, although currently too slow for some ultra-leftists, would end completely.I'm not really an expert on Chile (or Venezuela for that matter) but I think its important to note that the world has changed since 1973.

During the cold war the main foreign policy goal of nearly every capitalist state was to combat socialist uprisings. Today the focus of agencies like the CIA is the combat of Islamic terrorist groups. If there is a time to take power it should be now, when foreign capitalist governments are looking the other way. There was certainly a time when the main threat of any Latin American leftist movement was the CIA. That was also a time when the bourgeois US government could invoke the fear of the USSR for it to convince its workers that intervention in Latin America was necessary.

I simply have a hard time seeing counter-revolutionary's getting the same foreign aid that they did in 1973. If the working class is truly ready for revolution then their only major enemy's will be their class enemy's within Venezuela.


The Venezuelan working class is better organized and more revolutionary than ever before. The state is arming itself and developing international alliances to strengthen itself against the inevitable counter-revolution. The day will come when the Venezuelan proletariat is strong enough to overcome capitalism (unless this progress is reversed by the heroic adventurism so many leftists desire).The question today is not if the proletariat is ready for counter-revolution for the simple reason that revolution in Venezuela has not yet occurred. Chavez talks a lot about revolution but property relations in Venezuela have basically remained the same. I can only hope that venezuelan workers understand that power in parliament means nothing if they don't control the means of production themselves.

The PSUV would do well to learn from the failures of the German SPD and the British labor party. It would also do well to make sure the workers of Venezuela understand the repercussions of putting too much trust into parties that promise or deliver electoral success.

Basically I'm saying that the workers of Venezuela and international socialists should only give the most tentative support for the PSUV. It's great that the party in power is not explicitly capitalist, but it should also be accepted that they haven't proven anything. Workers must be doing far more organizing without the help of the state than with it. Workers can't trust that when the revolution actually comes that the party in power will actually support them. And workers must understands that bureaucrats, no matter what party they belong to, will sometimes kill to retain their position.

[Joe_Germinal]

I certainly hope that the information you gave early in your post is correct. More revolutionary membership in unions is always a good thing. However 10 years of history in Venezuela should not be used to mask 100 years of history around the world.

I never sought to mask anything, you said that reformism generally leads to less demand for socialism, and I responded with the fact that there is more demand for socialism in Venezuela today than ever before.


During the cold war the main foreign policy goal of nearly every capitalist state was to combat socialist uprisings. Today the focus of agencies like the CIA is the combat of Islamic terrorist groups. If there is a time to take power it should be now, when foreign capitalist governments are looking the other way.

The "focus" of the CIA has nothing to do with the case. American capital has never allowed socialism to develop in this hemisphere. The CIA may be scared shitless of Al Qaeda, but you have to be a materialist when analyzing these things. It is no more in the interest of the American bourgeoisie to allow socialism to develop in Venezuela now than it would have been 20 years ago. If you're wondering if capitalists are able to rely on the support of American military might in Latin America just ask the people of Nicaragua, El Salvador, Haiti, Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Guatemala, Granada, Columbia, Honduras, etc.


I simply have a hard time seeing counter-revolutionary's getting the same foreign aid that they did in 1973.

The 2002 coup was supported by the US and Spain. The Venezuelan opposition today is primarily funded by the US. Counter-revolutionaries in Venezuela alrady have US support.


The question today is not if the proletariat is ready for counter-revolution for the simple reason that revolution in Venezuela has not yet occurred.

As I said, you must be ready to fight the counter-revolution if you don't want to end up dead, in prison, or in exile. The only Latin American socialist country to survive is Cuba because (1) it was internally strong enough to beat back American sponsored invasion and terrorism and (2) because it had powerful allies (like the USSR) whose military power scared the Americans into backing down. Venezuela is neither of these things, but if you take a look at its foreign policy and defense policy you'll see that it is developing these capacities.


It's great that the party in power is not explicitly capitalist, but it should also be accepted that they haven't proven anything. Workers must be doing far more organizing without the help of the state than with it. Workers can't trust that when the revolution actually comes that the party in power will actually support them.

That was my original point; the workers are organizing both inside the PSUV and outside the PSUV. Every step to the left taken by Chavez (recall that in 1999 he wasn't even a socialist) has been forced on him by the independent pressure placed on him by workers. The recent nationalizations are basically him caving into (or more positively accepting the democratic will of) the unions. It is fair to assume until we have evidence to the contrary that Chavez will either keep moving left to satisfy his supporters or be abandoned by them.


And workers must understands that bureaucrats, no matter what party they belong to, will sometimes kill to retain their position.

Despite your hysterical warnings Chavez hasn't even killed any bourgeois oppositionists (even the ones who overthrew him for 3 days) let alone workers. You do the Venezuelan proletariat and the international left a disservice when you assert that they would uniformly continue to support Chavez even if he became an open counter-revolutionary murderer.

[Sendo]

This can be seen as socialism that can be used to achieve more socialism. Just because the workers haven't radically changed the structure of society doesn't mean they won't. Besides, in chains and the service sector I support nationalization over workers' co-ops.

For individual enterprises or factories or farming collectives, the more autonomy the better. But banks, post offices, and markets are distributing services...they don't produce anything, they render services, and therefore are more suited towards nationalization. I'm sure workers' autonomy can make the workplace even better, but I feel that the imperative for that should be in other industries.

I can't take an ultra-left stance and say it's the same as "state capitalism" and I don't think anyone else here should. The 2nd most leftist man in power in the Western hemisphere who has a renewed military threat now from Colombia and Obama. The last thing he needs is the American left criticizing him.

[Sendo]

I never sought to mask anything, you said that reformism generally leads to less demand for socialism, and I responded with the fact that there is more demand for socialism in Venezuela today than ever before.


This is key. Social-democratic reforms have NOT become a safety valve in Venezuela because they don't stomp on already existing worker organizations and because the political consciousness is high. I can't stand the stance that we must prepare (ie wait) for the revolutionary period when conditions are ripe. The more action now, the better, and it doesn't seem to have any negative effects.

This also a response to the mandate the people have given Chavez, and that support continues onto to the streets, everyday, not just election day (as can be seen in his restoration after the 2002 coup). Not everything has to happen in the ideal, 19th century way.

[cb9's_unity]

I never sought to mask anything, you said that reformism generally leads to less demand for socialism, and I responded with the fact that there is more demand for socialism in Venezuela today than ever before.

I said that reformism can be used to lessen demand for socialism. I didn't say that reformism always lessens demands for socialism. Despite a growing reformist wing of the German SPD the party gained proponents during the early part of the 20th century. And despite the fact that the party grew and genuine socialists became more prevalent in germany, the reformist wing bureaucracy was eventually used to destroy the revolutionary wing of the party. A similar event happened in Britain when the labor party reformed itself into a capitalist party.

My point is not that reformism instantly destroys the demand for socialism. My point is that reformism simply can be used to distract people from making true socialist demands.


The "focus" of the CIA has nothing to do with the case. American capital has never allowed socialism to develop in this hemisphere. The CIA may be scared shitless of Al Qaeda, but you have to be a materialist when analyzing these things. It is no more in the interest of the American bourgeoisie to allow socialism to develop in Venezuela now than it would have been 20 years ago. If you're wondering if capitalists are able to rely on the support of American military might in Latin America just ask the people of Nicaragua, El Salvador, Haiti, Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Guatemala, Granada, Columbia, Honduras, etc.
I have never disagreed that it is in american bourgeois interests to stop revolution in venezuela. However the american bourgeoisie, and its agents, are far from perfect.

A materialist perspective is certainly helpful, but it isn't everything. No matter how much Venezuelan socialism threatens American capitalism, one must take into account the American political situation. A major intervention in Latin America would probably be suicide for the Obama administration. To stay in elected office American politicians must throw their full foreign policy weight into fighting islamic terrorism. There still may be some support for a counter-revolutionary movement in Venezuela, but nothing like the cold war support and pre-911 support Latin American capitalist party's may have gotten. For purely political reasons, the CIA and Obama administration simply can't afford to spend much of their time outside of fighting Islamic terrorism. If they were trained in Marxist class analysis they might realize how fragile their bourgeois class interests are, but most of them aren't.

It is very possible for the American government to make mistakes in regards to its own materialist class needs. Reactionary's in Latin American simply can't be as reliant on American anti-socialism as they once were.


Despite your hysterical warnings Chavez hasn't even killed any bourgeois oppositionists (even the ones who overthrew him for 3 days) let alone workers. You do the Venezuelan proletariat and the international left a disservice when you assert that they would uniformly continue to support Chavez even if he became an open counter-revolutionary murderer.
I'm not sure what are "hysterical" about my warnings. Reformist movements have betrayed the working class before, there is no reason why they can't betray them again. The last 10 years is the reason why I haven't totally rejected Chavez and his reformist movement, but the past 100 years is the reason why I think it is insanity to put much more than the most skeptical trust in any reformist movement.

You tote your materialist analysis of foreign policy but you aren't taking much of one with your domestic analysis of Venezuela. The PSUV are at the head of the bourgeois state and are currently in the business of protecting bourgeois property rights. This means there is an entire bureaucracy that is currently making its living off of working for the bourgeois state. A true working class revolution will threaten those bureaucrats, as revolution always comes with the possibility of counter-revolutionary's watering at the mouth to remove all elements of a socialist party from the bourgeois state in the case of a reactionary victory. History has repeatedly shown that bureaucrats and reformists can side against those who they once were in the same party with. I hope this won't happen in Venezuela, but it is something that the people should be prepared for.

You only seem to want to look at the past 10 years of Venezuelan history to predict how Chavez will act moving forward. You must understand that it would actually go against historical precedent for Chavez to hand over power to the workers. You must also understand that in his current role Chavez is actively protecting bourgeois rights, and he has an immense amount of personal power for doing so.

My original point in this thread was that Chavez could easily give the workers a break and simply hand over power, however its not something they should expect. The workers councils to my knowledge are still highly connected to and dependent on state support. Chavez and his party would do well to be constantly warning the people of Venezuela about bureaucratization.

[Joe_Germinal]

My point is not that reformism instantly destroys the demand for socialism. My point is that reformism simply can be used to distract people from making true socialist demands.

That is my point as well. I have no doubt that reformism can distort class consciousnesses, what I've been saying all night is that there is no evidence that it has in this case.


I have never disagreed that it is in american bourgeois interests to stop revolution in venezuela. However the american bourgeoisie, and its agents, are far from perfect.

I didn't say perfect, I did say they had a record in Latin America of about 45 wins and 1 loss. I also explained why they had the one loss.


A materialist perspective is certainly helpful, but it isn't everything. No matter how much Venezuelan socialism threatens American capitalism, one must take into account the American political situation. A major intervention in Latin America would probably be suicide for the Obama administration.

All overthrowing Chavez would do is win Obama some support on the right and make their attacks on him as a socialist much more difficult to make.


To stay in elected office American politicians must throw their full foreign policy weight into fighting islamic terrorism.

If that is true, then why did Hilary Clinton meet with the Honduran General Staff in the days before they launched a coup against a leftist much more moderate than Chavez. By your logic this should caused the American right to denounce Obama as distracted from fighting terrorism by his focus on Latin American leftists. Indeed, the opposite was true. The American right hammered Obama for being too hard on the Honduran coupsters, because he released pro forma statements condemning it (we should remember that the Ford White House released similar statements after the invasion of East Timor which was authorized by another famous secretary of state) while acting in such a way as to ensure that it succeeded.


For purely political reasons, the CIA and Obama administration simply can't afford to spend much of their time outside of fighting Islamic terrorism. If they were trained in Marxist class analysis they might realize how fragile their bourgeois class interests are, but most of them aren't.

The bourgeoisie denounce class analysis, but somehow they almost always act in their class interests.


I'm not sure what are "hysterical" about my warnings. Reformist movements have betrayed the working class before, there is no reason why they can't betray them again. The last 10 years is the reason why I haven't totally rejected Chavez and his reformist movement, but the past 100 years is the reason why I think it is insanity to put much more than the most skeptical trust in any reformist movement.

I didn't say you were hysterical to reject Chavez' reformism, but to imply that he might kill workers who demanded socialism when his entire time in office has been a story of giving in to demand after demand of workers who are to his left politically. The only people killing leftists in the last 11 years of Venezuelan history are exactly who'd you expect: the Venezuelan right.


You tote your materialist analysis of foreign policy but you aren't taking much of one with your domestic analysis of Venezuela. The PSUV are at the head of the bourgeois state and are currently in the business of protecting bourgeois property rights.

Oddly, while you suggest that Obama (who has gotten more campaign money from US finance capitalists than any other source) would almost certainly not support a rightist coup in Venezuela, you become a dogmatic determinist and materialist when it comes to Chavez' use of the bourgeois state as an instrument for reform. Yes. As I've said before, the man protects property rights (por ahora), but his political survival depends on his at least partial satisfaction of the working class movement to his left. Obama, in whose anti-imperialism you place so much faith, depends on maintaining support of the petit-bourgoeis and of finanace capitalists. Of course, I wish the fellow would take old Karl's advice and smash the bourgeois state, but I also realize that if he did he'd be quickly dead and that membership in the ever more revolutionary UNT would be quickly illegal.


This means there is an entire bureaucracy that is currently making its living off of working for the bourgeois state. A true working class revolution will threaten those bureaucrats, as revolution always comes with the possibility of counter-revolutionary's watering at the mouth to remove all elements of a socialist party from the bourgeois state in the case of a reactionary victory. History has repeatedly shown that bureaucrats and reformists can side against those who they once were in the same party with. I hope this won't happen in Venezuela, but it is something that the people should be prepared for.

This is an excellent point and should be made more often. While I believe Chavez relies on the support of revolutionary workers, you are absolutely correct to point out that the bourgeois civil service will never support a socialist revolution. The difference between us on this point is that I'm more afraid of the war machine and intelligence apparatus of the most powerful imperialist country in history than of the Venezuelan civil service.


You only seem to want to look at the past 10 years of Venezuelan history to predict how Chavez will act moving forward. You must understand that it would actually go against historical precedent for Chavez to hand over power to the workers.

I don't think I ever predicted that Chavez would hand over power to the workers. I did predict that the workers are gaining strength and forcing him to the left. At some point in this process he will have either to "hand over power" or get his ass kicked out of power.

There is, as a side note, historical precedent for movement non-socialist reformers in Latin America being pushed leftward by communist and socialist supporters until they finally are forced to establish a dictatorship of the proletariat. The movement in question is, of course, the 26 of July movement and the leader is Fidel Castro. I never said it was the rule, of course, it is the rare exception. Still, the old fellow seems fairly taken with the young Venezuelan, perhaps he recognizes something. Either way, my faith remains with the workers of Venezuela and not with Chavez in the last 11 years they have yet to let me down.


You must also understand that in his current role Chavez is actively protecting bourgeois rights, and he has an immense amount of personal power for doing so.

I disagree, his power is mostly derived from the fact that he commonly gets 60% in elections and that he has a working class movement which supports him, albeit critically. Without these, would any leader really have the power to do what Chavez and his movement have done? Additionally, his "active" support for property rights seems much more passive to me, as I hear little news of Chavez breaking strikes, sending the army to take over worker controlled industries, etc. He is supporting property rights primarily by challenging them on a case by case basis, instead of a general basis. Again, I would love to take the ultra-left line and comdemn this, but at the moment, I feel he is acting wisely given the external threat. More importantly, he and the Venezuelan proletariat are taking the actions they need to strengthen themselves against this external threat. You have never admitted this, all you do is argue that there is no external threat, which is untenable.


My original point in this thread was that Chavez could easily give the workers a break and simply hand over power, however its not something they should expect.

What they expect is of little relevance, what they demand is more important. Their demands are getting more left wing and show no sign of stopping. If the US disappeared tomorrow, I have little doubt that the Venezuelan working class would either be given power or take power itself. The question I asked in my last post (which you didn't address) is this: What reasons do you have for doubting that the revolutionary commitment of the Venezuelan proletariat?

[KC]

Edit

[cb9's_unity]

Some of this argument is starting to become pointless. To a certain extent we are different sides to the same coin. We have our disagreements but my originally being in this thread wasn't to argue with people like you. There are people far too loyal to anything Chavez does. Your apparent understanding that it is at least possible for Chavez to have to be usurped at some point by the working class makes our differences mostly negligible. You understand that Chavez's interests and the Venezuelan working classes interests aren't inherently the same.


If that is true, then why did Hilary Clinton meet with the Honduran General Staff in the days before they launched a coup against a leftist much more moderate than Chavez. By your logic this should caused the American right to denounce Obama as distracted from fighting terrorism by his focus on Latin American leftists. Indeed, the opposite was true. The American right hammered Obama for being too hard on the Honduran coupsters, because he released pro forma statements condemning it (we should remember that the Carter White House released similar statements after the invasion of East Timor which was authorized by another famous secretary of state) while acting in such a way to ensure that it succeeded.Are you seriously comparing a shift in bourgeois ruling party's to full scale class war? A bloodless coup that simply replaced liberal seats with conservatives requires a whole lot less resources to support than a proletarian revolution where workers are taking over factory's and destroying all private property rights. It would be easier for America to simply replace Chavez's seat with a conservative than to replace every factory and union in Venezuela with capitalists. Of course Obama is going to be able to influence bourgeois politics, social revolution is something different.


All overthrowing Chavez would do is win Obama some support on the right and make their attacks on him as a socialist much more difficult to make.There is legitimately nothing Obama could do to please the right wing right now. He could personally hunt down Fidel with his own bare hands and the right wing would say he didn't wear enough red white and blue while doing it. One doesn't need to look past the current terrorist civilian trial debate to realize the right wing is all too ready to criticize Obama even when he is doing the same thing Bush had done before. Bush may have supported a Venezuelan coup in 2002, but any major intervention by Obama in Latin America would probably be criticized for being a distraction from terrorism.


I didn't say you were hysterical to reject Chavez' reformism, but to imply that he might kill workers who demanded socialism when his entire time in office has been a story of giving in to demand after demand of workers who are to his left politically. The only people killing leftists in the last 11 years of Venezuelan history are exactly who'd you expect: the Venezuelan right.My point is that I would never put much trust in someone who could possibly loose as much power as Chavez could. Its certainly a good thing when he gives into left wing demands, but so far there hasn't been a real demand (that I know of) for him to leave power. A true socialist revolution would essentially disintegrate the power that he now has, to think there isn't a possibility that he would react violently to this is absurd. I don't put a lot of trust into 'great men' whose relationship to the working class has fundamentally changed due to what his position in the state now is.


Oddly, while you suggest that Obama (who has gotten more campaign money from US finance capitalists than any other source) would almost certainly not support a rightist coup in Venezuela, you become a dogmatic determinist and materialist when it comes to Chavez' use of the bourgeois state as an instrument for reform. Yes. As I've said before, the man protects property rights (por ahora), but his political survival depends on his at least partial satisfaction of the working class movement to his left. Obama, in whose anti-imperialism you place so much faith, depends on maintaining support of the petit-bourgoeis and of finanace capitalists. Of course, I wish the fellow would take old Karl's advice and smash the bourgeois state, but I also realize that if he did he'd be quickly dead and that membership in the ever more revolutionary UNT would be quickly illegal.
You've resorted to trying to portray me as an Obama sympathizer. I apologize if I base my political beliefs more on political realities than paranoia. I've made it clear that I think Obama would be unlikely to support major intervention in Venezuela not because he is anti-imperialist, but because he wants to retain the presidency.

And to call me a dogmatic determinist is ridiculous. Throughout this entire thread I have stated my belief that it is very possible for Chavez to simply hand over power and prove his pro working class credentials. By no means is it inevitable that Chavez will betray the working class. However I'd rather analyze the situation in a materialist and marxist way instead of just saying 'well he's been pretty good so far'. Obama grew up in the working class and started off a community organizer, however I would never say "well he's been pretty good so far" when his party has a history of fucking over the working class. Reformism hasn't always been as explicitly anti-working class as liberalism but to a certain degree the point still stands (and explains why I have infinitely more trust in Chavez then Obama).


Again, I would love to take the ultra-left line and comdemn this, but at the moment, I feel he is acting wisely given the external threat. More importantly, he and the Venezuelan proletariat are taking the actions they need to strengthen themselves against this external threat. You have never admitted this, all you do is argue that there is no external threat, which is untenable.The way you wave the term ultra-left around is disgraceful. Using the term does nothing more than to facilitate denying opposing socialists are actually socialists at all. I can only hope that when the workers start actually demanding real power they won't simply be called "ultra-leftists". Of course the term does allow some to feel morally righteous when the time comes to support their favorite ideologue over the working class (or "ultra-leftists" as they will inevitably be called).

Some threat will certainly always exist, however the threat from America today is nothing like it was during the cold war. Political pressure is going to outweigh class interest when it comes to American intervention in Venezuela. In 1918 American class interests would have been much better served if America would have sent a whole lot more of its dough-boys into Russia. However the bourgeois government made a mistake and allowed the Bolsheviks to consolidate power. While it would be a mistake from a class point of view for the American bourgeoisie to allow the Venezuelan proletariat to take power, political realities will force Obama to make this mistake.

[ComradeRed22'91]

To the ultra-idealists: yes, I know that wouldn't be a "legitimate" workers revolution in your book, but we have to settle for what we have. :)

Love it!

[Joe_Germinal]

Some of this argument is starting to become pointless. To a certain extent we are different sides to the same coin.

I think you're right and I'm happy to leave this for the moment, just to make one last point.


The way you wave the term ultra-left around is disgraceful. Using the term does nothing more than to facilitate denying opposing socialists are actually socialists at all.

I think you're right to say that I throw around the term ultra-left too much. This sanctimonious tendency is the unfortunate result of having spent 10 years on the American left which is full of comrades who would rather support heroic failure than modest but growing success.

[Delenda Carthago]

Workers control the government so the workers are doing it themselves.
ho ho ho...thats a good one!

[Artemis3]

The Bolivarian State has just nationalized this Franco-Colombian chain and is transferring control directly to the workers. It is being broadcast live in national TV, workers are declaring justice and words against the previous oppressive owners, and are very happy to handle themselves the chain as a socialist distribution chain.

The majority of shares from this Hyper market chain belonged to Groupe Casino (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupe_Casino) and a minority to Colombian Almacenes "Exito" (mostly usage of the brand and logo).

Because Chavez announced this on Sunday, the owners attempted to fire everyone and take the goods, but right now the State with the workers and authorities have taken control.

http://vtv.gob.ve/files/imagecache/thumb_portada/imagecache/trabaja+exito.jpg

Live Stream here: http://vtv.gob.ve/envivo.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxM0U9LCXqA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-WcIAa6EvY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjKFd56rz7w http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDLlrVNuGuk

[KC]

Edit

[cyu]

What does "transferring control directly to the workers" mean? Because that doesn't sound like a nationalization to me.


They are probably still experimenting with various types of social organization. The last I heard, they often had a type of "co-management" in which employees had some say and the government had some say. That was a while back though - I don't know how much has changed. Personally I would rather see full self-management instead.

[Patchd]

It just gets more interesting in venezuela by the day http://www.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8464741.stm
Yeah, it looks like he's becoming more and more like Clement Atlee, why do revolutionaries support social democrats and reformists? :rolleyes:

[Tatarin]

I think that a comparison of Chavez and Allende should be looked at more easily. Remember, in 1973 the world had an evil child-eating communist empire to ally to, today it is gone. However, Russia, for good or bad, have taken some interest in Venezuela, and like China do not condemn countries for doing whatever they do internally.

But I can only say :thumbup: for Chavez in this move.

[Charles Xavier]

blank

[Artemis3]

What does "transferring control directly to the workers" mean? Because that doesn't sound like a nationalization to me.

The State Nationalizes, so any claims from the old owners will go against the State, then it transfers the property as social property to the workers and assists them with funding or technical aid if needed.

In the videos, the Minister of Commerce has clearly stated they don't have the capacity to run the chain, only the workers can do it. There will be no co-management, all the management will be done by the workers.

In some past experiences there has been "co-management", but only because the workers chose to. Sometimes they actually wanted the State to own an industry (traditional nationalization); but that doesn't seem to be the case here, and they are very happy to handle it on their own.

As always, if in doubt, don't trust me or anyone else, do come, and talk with them yourselves; and stop spreading lies in this forum (seriously, it gets tiresome).

[RadioRaheem84]

The State Nationalizes, so any claims from the old owners will go against the State, then it transfers the property as social property to the workers and assists them with funding or technical aid if needed.

In the videos, the Minister of Commerce has clearly stated they don't have the capacity to run the chain, only the workers can do it. There will be no co-management, all the management will be done by the workers.

In some past experiences there has been "co-management", but only because the workers chose to. Sometimes they actually wanted the State to own an industry (traditional nationalization); but that doesn't seem to be the case here, and they are very happy to handle it on their own.

As always, if in doubt, don't trust me or anyone else, do come, and talk with them yourselves; and stop spreading lies in this forum (seriously, it gets tiresome).


Was all of this to ward off a coming speculative bubble in food prices?

Either way, if this is true and what's really happening, then I am more in favor of the Chavez administration!

[khad]

This can be seen as socialism that can be used to achieve more socialism. Just because the workers haven't radically changed the structure of society doesn't mean they won't. Besides, in chains and the service sector I support nationalization over workers' co-ops.
For real. The same idiot logic of seeing this nationalization as a bad thing is the same logic young rebels without a clue use to categorically denounce public education or the welfare state--because those services happen to exist in a capitalist society.

[Artemis3]

Was all of this to ward off a coming speculative bubble in food prices? Thats one reason. To me another reason is that most of the economy is still in private hands, so we have to start building the alternative in parallel. We have already started with the means of production, but were a bit lacking in the means of distribution of the produced goods... Also in workers hands this opens many chances, for example using community currency.

[RadioRaheem84]

http://www.minec.gob.ve/index.php

Looks like a good site. Haven't rummaged through it though.

[RadioRaheem84]

Thats one reason. To me another reason is that most of the economy is still in private hands, so we have to start building the alternative in parallel. We have already started with the means of production, but were a bit lacking in the means of distribution of the produced goods... Also in workers hands this opens many chances, for example using community currency.

Excellent work!

[cyu]

The State Nationalizes... then it transfers the property as social property to the workers and assists them with funding or technical aid if needed.

In the videos, the Minister of Commerce has clearly stated they don't have the capacity to run the chain, only the workers can do it. There will be no co-management, all the management will be done by the workers.

In some past experiences there has been "co-management", but only because the workers chose to...

As always, if in doubt, don't trust me or anyone else, do come, and talk with them yourselves; and stop spreading lies in this forum (seriously, it gets tiresome).


Sounds good to me if that's the direction they are moving in. Whether they are actually implementing that policy is sometimes hard to tell, but I'd support that policy regardless =]

[KC]

Edit

[cyu]

Excerpts from http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=2010venezuela-voices

by failing to see beyond Chavez and the government’s anti-neoliberal policies, one of the most significant political dynamics in Venezuela has gone ignored and underappreciated—the dynamic between a government that has committed itself to a discourse of grassroots political participation, and the response of ordinary Venezuelans to this call, often in ways that go beyond the expectations of the government

The most well-known example of participatory democracy in Venezuela’s Bolivarian Revolution is the system of communal councils, which have “provided Venezuelans with a legal mechanism to locally organize themselves into democratic structures of between 200-400 families, with the greater goal of determining the way that government funds get used for development and infrastructure projects in their communities.”

the community councils are just the “tip of the iceberg of the construction of popular power in Venezuela. Over the course of the Bolivarian Revolution, Venezuelans have created cooperatives; taken over factories; occupied urban and rural lands; launched community radio and television stations; built centers for culture and popular education; participated in creating national legislation and found numerous other ways of bringing the government’s discourse of popular power into reality.

rather than let their criticisms of Venezuela’s political process fill us with disillusionment, these testimonies should provide us with inspiration in knowing that so many people are actively engaged in constructing their new society, regardless of setbacks.