Venezuela Creates Peasant Militias, Enacts Federal Government Council [Archive]

The Vegan Marxist

23rd February 2010, 18:18

Venezuela Creates Peasant Militias, Enacts Federal Government Council
February 22nd 2010
by Kiraz Janicke

http://i50.tinypic.com/16i78et.jpg

Caracas, February 22, 2010 (venezuelanalysis.com) – Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez announced the creation of a new Peasant Militia, which will form part of the national Bolivarian Armed Forces (FAB) and also enacted the new Law of the Federal Government Council, during a ceremony to commemorate 151 years since the Federal War lead by peasant leader General Ezequiel Zamora in Venezuela on Saturday.

The peasant militia will be responsible for protecting poor farmers from mercenary groups organized and financed by ranchers and wealthy landowners, Chavez explained in his weekly column, “Chavez’s Lines” on Sunday. More than 300 peasant leaders and activists have been murdered since the government introduced the Law on Land and Agricultural Development in 2001 and launched a program of agrarian reform.

Some 1,505 farms totalling 2.5 million hectares have been recovered and redistributed under the agrarian reform program. However, “The landowning oligarchy launched a violent agenda against the rescue of the commons,” Chavez said.

Manuel Heredia, president of the National Ranchers Federation responded that “As an institution, we have never sought paramilitary groups to protect us,” but he did not rule out the possibility that individual members maybe be involved in financing paramilitary groups, saying, “If one of our members is proven guilty of a crime, then they should pay for their crime.”

Chavez argued, “Faced with the backlash against the peasants through an escalation of attacks, sabotage, and paid assassinations by the most retrograde forces in our society, the non-delegable duty of the Bolivarian national state and the revolutionary government is to protect the peasantry: to defend them with all means at its disposal.”

“The peasant militia has been created to fulfil that duty, placing emphasis on the protagonism and responsibility of the peasantry as a collective subject in function of their own defence,” the president continued.

Rebutting opposition sectors who have alleged that the new militias are paramilitary groups, Chavez explained that the peasant militias will form part of the Bolivarian Armed Forces, and “therefore, do not undermine it, nor are they intended to supplant it” and will be “absolutely regulated by the law,” adding, “What bothers and annoys those who spread such lies, is that the Armed Forces have been reunited with their original identity: the people in arms.”

The peasant militia will also assist the regular army “against any foreign aggressor,” wrote Chavez, who has warned that the U.S. military could invade Venezuela in order to seize control of its vast oil reserves.

“We have no plans to attack anyone, but we will turn Venezuela into a country that is able to defend every last inch of its territory,” the president told thousands of supporters on Saturday.

For Chavez, the peasant militias “are just a first sign of developing a popular armed force to safeguard our integrity and our sovereignty” and are “expressions of the new communal state; an integral part of the new structures of communal power that we are building.”

The peasant militias, which are active in rural areas, will complement the primarily urban-based Bolivarian Militias, which were incorporated into the reform of the Armed Forces Law that came into force on October 22, 2009.

Major General and Defence Minister Carlos Mata Figueroa described the peasant militias, which began training in the state of Cojedes last week as a “strategic arm for the defence of our republic.”

During the ceremony on Saturday, which was attended by a contingent of the new peasant militia, Chavez also signed the new Law of the Federal Government Council, which aims to decentralize a range of powers away from traditional municipal and state authorities and transfer those powers to grassroots communal councils, involving more people in the evaluation and approval of financial resources.

The Federal Government Council will consist of elected governors, mayors, members of the executive, as well as spokespeople elected in popular elections and representatives of the communal councils.

The new Law of the Federal Government Council “is a powerful tool for the construction of a socialist homeland…to give shape to a new geometry of popular, political, social, communal and military power” and to create a new organ of “revolutionary power to continue fighting against the oligarchy and empire, to continue building the independence of our nation,” Chavez declared.

As part of the ceremony Chavez also unveiled a new stature of Zamora in El Calvario Park in western Caracas and renamed the park, Ezequiel Zamora Park.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/5150

bailey_187

23rd February 2010, 18:26

I'm not a gun fetishist or anything but i love seeing workers and peasents with guns

The Vegan Marxist

23rd February 2010, 18:38

Over 180 communes, the peasants & workers are getting armed & supported by Chavez & the state, if this isn't a clear successful road towards communism, then I don't know what is.

zimmerwald1915

23rd February 2010, 18:50

Over 180 communes, the peasants & workers are getting armed & supported by Chavez & the state, if this isn't a clear successful road towards communism, then I don't know what is.
Well, I gotta say that's a very interesting way of spinning this news. I see it rather differently: what I see here is the state trying to draw ever more layers of society to its own defense. Chavez, as it happens, agrees with me. He sees the peasant militia as an "integral part" of his state apparatus. There is also, of course, some rather disgusting chauvinism and national defensism at work here. Chavez and Figueroa see this not only as a police force, but also as a military force for the defense of the "integrity" and "sovereignty" of "our republic". I don't know about you, but that's the kind of talk I expect to hear from bourgeois leaders, from people who want to stifle the class struggle and bury it in nationalist fantasies. It is not the kind of talk I expect to hear from socialists. It is the kind of talk I expect to hear from Chavez and Chavistas.

“We have no plans to attack anyone, but we will turn Venezuela into a country that is able to defend every last inch of its territory,” the president told thousands of supporters on Saturday.

For Chavez, the peasant militias “are just a first sign of developing a popular armed force to safeguard our integrity and our sovereignty” and are “expressions of the new communal state; an integral part of the new structures of communal power that we are building.”

Major General and Defence Minister Carlos Mata Figueroa described the peasant militias, which began training in the state of Cojedes last week as a “strategic arm for the defence of our republic.”

The Vegan Marxist

23rd February 2010, 18:54

Well, I gotta say that's a very interesting way of spinning this news. I see it rather differently: what I see here is the state trying to draw ever more layers of society to its own defense. Chavez, as it happens, agrees with me. He sees the peasant militia as an "integral part" of his state apparatus. There is also, of course, some rather disgusting chauvinism and national defensism at work here. Chavez and Figueroa see this not only as a police force, but also as a military force for the defense of the "integrity" and "sovereignty" of "our republic". I don't know about you, but that's the kind of talk I expect to hear from bourgeois leaders, from people who want to stifle the class struggle and bury it in nationalist fantasies. It is not the kind of talk I expect to hear from socialists. It is the kind of talk I expect to hear from Chavez and Chavistas.

I haven't heard any news of oppressment going on in Venezuela by Chavez yet, so I'm not going to attack this new police force that has been developed here. I hope to hear good news from it.

zimmerwald1915

23rd February 2010, 19:03

I haven't heard any news of oppressment going on in Venezuela by Chavez yet, so I'm not going to attack this new police force that has been developed here. I hope to hear good news from it.
Neither have I heard anything about this particular force being used as a tool for repression. If you read my post very carefully, you'll notice that I say nothing of the kind. What I said was that the "peasant militias" are fundamentally tied to the state, that they form, in Chavez's own words, an integral part of the state. They represent an attempt to mobilize yet another part of the Venezuelan population in defense specifically of the "Bolivarian Republic", in particular, to carry Figueroa's words to their logical conclusion, in war between Venezuela and other powers. I oppose this because integration into the state destroys, almost automatically, the capacity for self-organization and clarification among the social layers concerned, and because Venezuela is, all phraseology aside, a capitalist country, because the "Bolivarian Republic" is yet another iteration of the same old state capitalism, and because none of this deserves the support of communists.

The Vegan Marxist

23rd February 2010, 20:02

zimmerwald1915

23rd February 2010, 20:12

Do you not believe that it'll now allow the formation of other militias to take abound through the many communes that are taking place in Venezuela, since the Peasant militias are for the protection of farming workers, etc? Given that the communes are formed by themselves & not integrated with the State, despite the vast support by Chavez.
I'm not entirely sure from where you're pulling the line that these militias do not form part of the Venezuelan state. Half your article is about how they're "part of the Bolivarian Armed Forces" and that part of their mission is to defend the "integrity and sovereignty" of the Bolivarian Republic. Indeed, it seems as though they'd mostly be used as human barricades, given the barbaric comment, laden with shades of human sacrifice, about Venezuela defending "every last inch of its territory". I haven't done enough reading to know precisely the relations between the communes and the state in Venezuela, but, judging from your own article, the peasant militias (let's keep the discussion specific and focused, shall we?) are to the very core part of the Venezuelan state.

Chavez himself claims that they are, in fact, part of the Venezuelan state and not autonomous forces, as you're trying to claim. From your article:

"“Faced with the backlash against the peasants through an escalation of attacks, sabotage, and paid assassinations by the most retrograde forces in our society, the non-delegable duty of the Bolivarian national state and the revolutionary government is to protect the peasantry: to defend them with all means at its disposal.”

According to Chavez, the peasant militas were "created" by the Bolivarian Republic as an arm of that state in order to fulfill its "non-delegable duty". Heaven forbid peasants take up arms to defend themselves independently of the bourgeois state! If they do so, they might think they have the right not to take orders from the Minister of Defense in wartime! Heck, they might even come to be convinced that the Bolivarian Republic is a millstone around their necks that they could very well do without!

The Vegan Marxist

23rd February 2010, 20:20

I'm not entirely sure from where you're pulling the line that these militias do not form part of the Venezuelan state. Half your article is about how they're "part of the Bolivarian Armed Forces" and that part of their mission is to defend the "integrity and sovereignty" of the Bolivarian Republic. Indeed, it seems as though they'd mostly be used as human barricades, given the barbaric comment, laden with shades of human sacrifice, about Venezuela defending "every last inch of its territory". I haven't done enough reading to know precisely the relations between the communes and the state in Venezuela, but, judging from your own article, the peasant militias (let's keep the discussion specific and focused, shall we?) are to the very core part of the Venezuelan state.

Chavez himself claims that they are, in fact, part of the Venezuelan state and not autonomous forces, as you're trying to claim. From your article:

"“Faced with the backlash against the peasants through an escalation of attacks, sabotage, and paid assassinations by the most retrograde forces in our society, the non-delegable duty of the Bolivarian national state and the revolutionary government is to protect the peasantry: to defend them with all means at its disposal.”

According to Chavez, the peasant militas were "created" by the Bolivarian Republic as an arm of that state in order to fulfill its "non-delegable duty". Heaven forbid peasants take up arms to defend themselves independently of the bourgeois state! If they do so, they might think they have the right not to take orders from the Minister of Defense in wartime! Heck, they might even come to be convinced that the Bolivarian Republic is a millstone around their necks that they could very well do without!

I don't get where you're thinking that I'm saying they are NOT integrated with the state. I'm asking, do you think this might lead to other militias to form that is not integrated into the state, & rather takes part as the peace keepers within the worker communes that are taking form in many settlements within Venezuela, which are not run by the state?

But, despite that it's only a part of the state-capitalism that is present for the moment in Venezuela, I'd rather have these Peasant Militias doing the peace keeping rather than the type of police we have down here in the States.

What Would Durruti Do?

23rd February 2010, 20:36

Great news. Now lets develop some real communism by using those militias to destroy capitalism and overthrow the state and to form new autonomous societies based on the communes currently being formed.

Oh wait. Forgot it was just a new nationalist branch of the bourgeois's military. I can dream though, can't I?

zimmerwald1915

23rd February 2010, 20:36

I don't get where you're thinking that I'm saying they are NOT integrated with the state. I'm asking, do you think this might lead to other militias to form that is not integrated into the state, & rather takes part as the peace keepers within the worker communes that are taking form in many settlements within Venezuela, which are not run by the state?
Thank you for clarifying your position. I suppose I was confused by your assertion (which I can neither accept, since I don't have any evidence for it, nor reject totally, since I have no evidence against it) that the communes were independent of the state. That said, I do not think that the creation of the peasant militias creates a space for other militias that are not tied to the state. If anything, it makes it more likely that any militias created in the future will be tied to the state if not created by the state, since the state sees them as valuable both for purposes of appropriating autonomous class activity and for purposes of national defense. Further, I think it likely that groups of workers or peasants trying to create independent militias to defend themselves will be seen as a threat by the state, and will be attacked with force. Not that the creation of independent militias in Venezuela is all that great a possibility in the first place.

But, despite that it's only a part of the state-capitalism that is present for the moment in Venezuela, I'd rather have these Peasant Militias doing the peace keeping rather than the type of police we have down here in the States.
Well, that's just something we'll disagree on. A capitalist state is a capitalist state, and a state agent is a state agent, even if he lives in the community he's policing. The only response of communists is for the independent mass struggle of the working class as working class, and against all capitalist states.

Dogmatic, I know, right?

The Vegan Marxist

23rd February 2010, 20:56

Thank you for clarifying your position. I suppose I was confused by your assertion (which I can neither accept, since I don't have any evidence for it, nor reject totally, since I have no evidence against it) that the communes were independent of the state. That said, I do not think that the creation of the peasant militias creates a space for other militias that are not tied to the state. If anything, it makes it more likely that any militias created in the future will be tied to the state if not created by the state, since the state sees them as valuable both for purposes of appropriating autonomous class activity and for purposes of national defense. Further, I think it likely that groups of workers or peasants trying to create independent militias to defend themselves will be seen as a threat by the state, and will be attacked with force. Not that the creation of independent militias in Venezuela is all that great a possibility in the first place.

Well, that's just something we'll disagree on. A capitalist state is a capitalist state, and a state agent is a state agent, even if he lives in the community he's policing. The only response of communists is for the independent mass struggle of the working class as working class, and against all capitalist states.

Dogmatic, I know, right?

Despite the fact that the workers are gaining more power over in Venezuela than in a lot of other countries in the world?

RaÃºl Duke

23rd February 2010, 20:58

While people are skeptical about these peasant militias, and I agree with them, I think one has to also consider the possibilities which could arise from having an armed populance/working class.

Sure, they're meant to defend the state but if anything goes sour they could easily turn those guns against it.
Also, I see this move to be somewhat to entrenched the PSUV into the political system...

I wonder what happens when Chavez/PSUV is no longer in control and the shift moves to another, perhaps even a opposition, party... would these peasant militias rise up to stop the opposition from taking power even if (I'm not excluding coup) they won it at the ballot box? A situation like that could lead to a "radical situation" which, if the PSUV leadership takes a back-seat role (because if they're leading it the obvious intention they have is to use the militias to regain power), could lead to actual revolution of sorts.

redflag32

23rd February 2010, 21:02

what I see here is the state trying to draw ever more layers of society to its own defense. Chavez, as it happens, agrees with me. He sees the peasant militia as an "integral part" of his state apparatus. There is also, of course, some rather disgusting chauvinism and national defensism at work here. Chavez and Figueroa see this not only as a police force, but also as a military force for the defense of the "integrity" and "sovereignty" of "our republic". I don't know about you, but that's the kind of talk I expect to hear from bourgeois leaders, from people who want to stifle the class struggle and bury it in nationalist fantasies. It is not the kind of talk I expect to hear from socialists. It is the kind of talk I expect to hear from Chavez and Chavistas.

What do you think Chavez should actually do then? Surely you're in agreement that the creation of worker militias is a good thing in relation to getting the people ready for a revolutionary situation? Is it just that you don't think the 'state' should be the one to organise and control these militias?

The Vegan Marxist

23rd February 2010, 21:03

zimmerwald1915

23rd February 2010, 21:05

Sure, they're meant to defend the state but if anything goes sour they could easily turn those guns against it.
This is only a good thing if opposition to the state comes from a communist perspective. The peasant militias being co-opted by the Opposition is just as bad as being pressed into service of Chavismo.

Despite the fact that the workers are gaining more power over in Venezuela than in a lot of other countries in the world?
Revolution is a catastrophic, and a political act, in opposition to the current order of things. The development of independent communes, which might or might not be as rosy as you picture it, is at the same time gradual, apolitical, and entirely within the framework of capitalist property relations. In other words, no, workers don't have more power "over in Venezuela" than they do anyplace else. Workers have no country.

RaÃºl Duke

23rd February 2010, 21:06

Is it just that you don't think the 'state' should be the one to organise and control these militias?

While he's coming from an anarchist perspective, which thinks a worker's state is an oxymoron...even from a M-L perspective one has to consider that Chavez, while doing many things for the working people of Venezuela, and his PSUV isn't exactly a "vanguard" and has done many things that the left rejects (i.e. support for Iran, for example) plus it's doubtful to say that Venezuela is an actual "worker's state."

zimmerwald1915

23rd February 2010, 21:08

As it is apparent that there is skepticism, but some curious thoughts as well towards the Peasant Militias, let's start talking about the communal councils that are taking shape in Venezuela now. What does everyone here think of this as well? I find it to be a very good idea & a nice transition.
Saying "there are communal councils" and asking for a discussion based on your word is different from posting evidence about them (news sources, statements made by them, statements made by others about them, etc.) and asking for a discussion based on these sources. What has driven much of the skepticism regarding the militias, at least from me and Helix, is the direct evidence you've posted that they're unabashedly part of the capitalist state.

RaÃºl Duke

23rd February 2010, 21:08

This is only a good thing if opposition to the state comes from a communist perspective. The peasant militias being co-opted by the Opposition is just as bad as being pressed into service of Chavismo.

I obviously support them if they used the guns against the state from a communist (particularly anarcho-communist, you know me) perspective. I surely don't want them to be co-opted by the opposition and I doubt that's likely since the opposition probably includes those land-owners who have opposite/conflicting interests to the peasants.

The Vegan Marxist

23rd February 2010, 21:08

This is only a good thing if opposition to the state comes from a communist perspective. The peasant militias being co-opted by the Opposition is just as bad as being pressed into service of Chavismo.

Revolution is a catastrophic, and a political act, in opposition to the current order of things. The development of independent communes, which might or might not be as rosy as you picture it, is at the same time gradual, apolitical, and entirely within the framework of capitalist property relations. In other words, no, workers don't have more power "over in Venezuela" than they do anyplace else. Workers have no country.

The communes are not on private grounds & doesn't play within the capitalist property relations. The state allows them to operate on their own, decide what's what, & the workers are gaining grounds from this. I can tell you're an anarchist for your complete opposition to ANY state, despite the things that it's doing for the workers & peasants.

RaÃºl Duke

23rd February 2010, 21:10

As it is apparent that there is skepticism, but some curious thoughts as well towards the Peasant Militias, let's start talking about the communal councils that are taking shape in Venezuela now. What does everyone here think of this as well? I find it to be a very good idea & a nice transition.

Communal councils are nice...the issue is are they going to be truly used and dominated by the laboring classes or are they just use as appendages/support for the Bolivarian state (the negative thing of this last one would be in the case the Bolivarian state fails to follow a path to actual socialism and/or communism)?

Personally, I hope that these communal councils are independent. I guess, even if they're not right now, they could become depending on circumstances so it's good that they're in place.

The Vegan Marxist

23rd February 2010, 21:12

Saying "there are communal councils" and asking for a discussion based on your word is different from posting evidence about them (news sources, statements made by them, statements made by others about them, etc.) and asking for a discussion based on these sources. What has driven much of the skepticism regarding the militias, at least from me and Helix, is the direct evidence you've posted that they're unabashedly part of the capitalist state.

It's talked about in the article I provided. It talks of the development towards communal councils. And so, I'm asking what everyone thinks about this, which applies to comments on how it could work out, would it work out, whether you support it or not. If you keep any attention towards the happenings of Venezuela you wouldn't be so skeptical about anything that I'm posting here & would realize that these aren't just some 'thoughts' without any base to it.

zimmerwald1915

23rd February 2010, 21:18

I obviously support them if they used the guns against the state from a communist (particularly anarcho-communist, you know me) perspective. I surely don't want them to be co-opted by the opposition and I doubt that's likely since the opposition probably includes those land-owners who have opposite/conflicting interests to the peasants.
Just trying to be as clear as possible, and to head off at the pass any accusations of "really being for" the Opposition.:D

The communes are not on private grounds & doesn't play within the capitalist property relations. The state allows them to operate on their own, decide what's what, & the workers are gaining grounds from this. I can tell you're an anarchist for your complete opposition to ANY state, despite the things that it's doing for the workers & peasants.
Rather than seeing what you want to see in my posts, you could look at my signature and read exactly where my political allegiences lie. Of course, you're using "anarchist" as a pejoritive (I wonder how the anarchist plurality on this board feels about that?), which means you don't really care whether it's true or not.

I should have been much more clear, instead of shortly going off about "capitalist property relations". I did not mean to suggest that there were in fact private owners involved. What I meant was that they operated in a system with capitalist relations of production. At the very least, in order to survive even co-operative enterprises in capitalism have to make a profit, which means that the workers still must inject (oh so willingly) surplus value into their products, and then sell them as commodities on the market.

This is not the place to debate the period of transition: this thread is about the policy of one capitalist state trying to protect its power internationally and its ability to control its population domestically. I see no reason not to oppose such machinations.

redflag32

23rd February 2010, 21:20

The Vegan Marxist

23rd February 2010, 21:31

Just trying to be as clear as possible, and to head off at the pass any accusations of "really being for" the Opposition.:D

Rather than seeing what you want to see in my posts, you could look at my signature and read exactly where my political allegiences lie. Of course, you're using "anarchist" as a pejoritive (I wonder how the anarchist plurality on this board feels about that?), which means you don't really care whether it's true or not.

I should have been much more clear, instead of shortly going off about "capitalist property relations". I did not mean to suggest that there were in fact private owners involved. What I meant was that they operated in a system with capitalist relations of production. At the very least, in order to survive even co-operative enterprises in capitalism have to make a profit, which means that the workers still must inject (oh so willingly) surplus value into their products, and then sell them as commodities on the market.

This is not the place to debate the period of transition: this thread is about the policy of one capitalist state trying to protect its power internationally and its ability to control its population domestically. I see no reason not to oppose such machinations.

Zimmerwald, as in the Zimmerwald conference held by many socialists in 1915. I know what it is, & the stance laid out by it, but you seem highly anti-State use towards the goal of Communism, which only Anarchists apply to, & to be honest, as someone that use to be anarchist when I got into politics, I would've agreed with what you were talking about, as would many other anarchists. But that was then, & you speak like an Anarchist, in which is not an insult if that's what it seems like.

zimmerwald1915

23rd February 2010, 21:36

If a country is to be 'pure socialist' or 'communist' as in the eyes of Anarchists how can it achieve this in a world which is capitalist without having to cut itself off from international capitalism and become 'socialism in one country'? It can't be socialist if it operates in the capitalist market, so in order for it to succeed as socialism, even for a short period of time, it must create its own economy which is not internationalist but is nationalist. How does this sit with the Anarchist philosophy of 'workers have no country'?
First off, I don't claim to speak for anarchists, nor to be one. If an actual anarchist wants to answer your questions from an anarchist perspective, that'd be swell. I hope someone does. However, I get the sense that you're following TVM and using "anarchist" as a way to insult me (jeez, how self-important am I!?), and am thus entitled to respond. For future reference, the proper annoying pejoritive is "ultra-left".

You're comparing apples and oranges. I'm talking about co-operative enterprises being forced to operate according to the laws of the capitalist system in a period of unchallenged capitalism. You're talking about how revolutionary bastions relate to the capitalist world in a period of revolution. The situation I'm talking about is purely economic: a co-operative is not a political association, it is an enterprise. Its business is to make a profit, and it organizes its activity thereby. If it does not make a profit, its owner-workers have no means of supporting themselves, and it closes down. The situation you're talking about presupposes a massive, organized challenge to capitalism from the working class. It presupposes the taking power of the working class in one or more countries, and then asks the question of how those countries relate to the remaining capitalist world, how they organize their internal economies. The situation I'm talking about presupposes unchallenged capitalism. The situation you're talking about presupposes capitalism in combat for its life. They're entirely different.

That said, your question is perfectly valid and reasonable, and should be addressed. Whether it should be addressed in this thread is an entirely different question; I do not believe it appropriate, and if a moderator is reading this, I'd like to request a split of the thread so redflag's question can be treated more fully. That said, until that happens, the issue is not going to go away, so it might as well be treated. Obviously the laws of capitalism do not disappear overnight, particularly when there are still capitalist countries. That said, there are still steps that a revolutionary bastion can take to combat capitalism even as it comes into contact with it daily. First and foremost, it must work to spread revolution anywhere and everywhere it can, with all the resources it can muster. International revolution is not something that happens magically or by accident; it is difficult and requires hard work. But it is not utopian, and it is the only means of reaching a world without capitalism. As for internal measures, two steps that can be taken, that I can think of off the top of my head, are dramatically shortening the working day (so as to eliminate as far as possible exploitation based on surplus labor) and increasing the material comfort of the working class, enabling them to engage more fully and completely in political work, discussion, and leisure.

A final point: you can't find a more Marxist slogan than "workers have no country." If you don't recognize this, boy do you have a lot of reading to do.

zimmerwald1915

23rd February 2010, 21:42

Zimmerwald, as in the Zimmerwald conference held by many socialists in 1915. I know what it is, & the stance laid out by it, but you seem highly anti-State use towards the goal of Communism, which only Anarchists apply to, & to be honest, as someone that use to be anarchist when I got into politics, I would've agreed with what you were talking about, as would many other anarchists. But that was then, & you speak like an Anarchist, in which is not an insult if that's what it seems like.
Not to turn this into a semantic discussion, but "zimmerwald1915" is my username. My signature is the colored, emboldened text that appears below my posts.

If you want to make this a thread about the period of transition between capitalism and communism, I can't really stop you, can I? My username isn't purple and underlined. That said, I do believe that such a period is inevitable, and that a state will arise out of the continued antagonisms between the proletariat and the various non-exploiting strata that it drew behind it during the course of the revolution. I do NOT believe, and I am following Marx on this, that the proletariat can take the bourgeois state in hand and do as it likes with it. Nor do I believe that the bourgeois state can be an ally of the proletarian revolution, nor its actions a substitute for it. The bourgeois state and the proletarian revolution are the most bitter of enemies, and the victory of the latter means the destruction of the former.

Bringing this back to the concrete, Chavez is not an ally of the working class, and the state he heads is interested in protecting its own power and managing and growing the national capital.

The Vegan Marxist

23rd February 2010, 21:54

Not to turn this into a semantic discussion, but "zimmerwald1915" is my username. My signature is the colored, emboldened text that appears below my posts.

If you want to make this a thread about the period of transition between capitalism and communism, I can't really stop you, can I? My username isn't purple and underlined. That said, I do believe that such a period is inevitable, and that a state will arise out of the continued antagonisms between the proletariat and the various non-exploiting strata that it drew behind it during the course of the revolution. I do NOT believe, and I am following Marx on this, that the proletariat can take the bourgeois state in hand and do as it likes with it. Nor do I believe that the bourgeois state can be an ally of the proletarian revolution, nor its actions a substitute for it. The bourgeois state and the proletarian revolution are the most bitter of enemies, and the victory of the latter means the destruction of the former.

Bringing this back to the concrete, Chavez is not an ally of the working class, and the state he heads is interested in protecting its own power and managing and growing the national capital.

Though the state becomes a tool through the proletarian revolution, & this is coming from Marx as well. And I'd have to disagree with you on Chavez, though that's the thing I love about opinions, they've yet to be proven & have time to be altered.

redflag32

24th February 2010, 00:01

First off, I don't claim to speak for anarchists, nor to be one. If an actual anarchist wants to answer your questions from an anarchist perspective, that'd be swell. I hope someone does.

But you agree that your anti worker state position is synonymous with Anarchist thought? Thats what your whole input into this thread is based on. Every point you make stems from this analysis.

However, I get the sense that you're following TVM and using "anarchist" as a way to insult me (jeez, how self-important am I!?), and am thus entitled to respond. For future reference, the proper annoying pejoritive is "ultra-left".

I didn't quote you in this post, it was a post directed at anyone involved in the thread who adheres to the Anarchist anti-worker state analysis. You replied to my open post so you obviously feel some sort of affinty with the content i was talking about.

I havent used the term Anarchist in a derogatory way at all. You yourself said that "your question is perfectly valid and reasonable". So if it's a valid and reasonable question, why the automatic defencive attitude? If you feel like you can answer my problems with anarchist theory then please do, if you think my post was an attack on you, even though i never even mentioned you in my post once, then say so. You're making an awful fuss about someone misrepresenting you and attacking you as an Anarchist (jeez how self-important are you):cool:

You're comparing apples and oranges. I'm talking about co-operative enterprises being forced to operate according to the laws of the capitalist system in a period of unchallenged capitalism. You're talking about how revolutionary bastions relate to the capitalist world in a period of revolution.

No, my query is on the issue that if they were not "forced to operate according to the laws of the capitalist system" and instead were working from within a socialist economy, that economy would inevitably have to be based on national borders seeing as capitalism is the only international system in place at this time. And these national borders,of which a socialist system is in place, will have to be defended from attack. How does this sit with your opinion that what is at work here is "disgusting chauvinism and national defensism" ? Would your opinion on national defence change if it was in order to defend a socialist economy? You have called this a "National fantasy". Is this your opinion solely because it is tied to the state (any state) or is it because it is operating in a capitalist system?

The situation I'm talking about is purely economic:

Your single point about communes may be viewed as economic, but it is formed through a political analysis. It is your political analysis i am discussing, not the singular issue of communes.

Below are just a few examples of political points you made in this thread. Your analysis of anything to do with Chavez's attempt at Socialism is based on these ideas.

"what I see here is the state trying to draw ever more layers of society to its own defense"

"I oppose this because integration into the state destroys, almost automatically, the capacity for self-organization and clarification among the social layers concerned, and because Venezuela is, all phraseology aside, a capitalist country, because the "Bolivarian Republic" is yet another iteration of the same old state capitalism, and because none of this deserves the support of communists."

"The only response of communists is for the independent mass struggle of the working class as working class, and against all capitalist states."

a co-operative is not a political association, it is an enterprise. Its business is to make a profit, and it organizes its activity thereby. If it does not make a profit, its owner-workers have no means of supporting themselves, and it closes down.

Wrong, communes can work in a socialist, non-profit, economy. Is your problem with the communes because they operate under capitalism or because they are operating under a state controlled economy?

The situation you're talking about presupposes a massive, organized challenge to capitalism from the working class. It presupposes the taking power of the working class in one or more countries, and then asks the question of how those countries relate to the remaining capitalist world, how they organize their internal economies.

No, im clearly talking about how a single country should go about trying to create a socialist economy in a world of capitalism.

That said, your question is perfectly valid and reasonable, and should be addressed. Whether it should be addressed in this thread is an entirely different question; I do not believe it appropriate, and if a moderator is reading this, I'd like to request a split of the thread so redflag's question can be treated more fully.

My question is on your particular political analysis which gives you the opinions which you have expressed in this thread. Seen as political opinions stem from ideology, it must be valid for me to question your ideology.

Obviously the laws of capitalism do not disappear overnight, particularly when there are still capitalist countries. That said, there are still steps that a revolutionary bastion can take to combat capitalism even as it comes into contact with it daily.

Agreed

First and foremost, it must work to spread revolution anywhere and everywhere it can, with all the resources it can muster.

Chavez does this, more so than any political leader in the world at present. Unless you don't think tackling global capitalism and imperialism goes under "with all the resources it can muster"

As for internal measures, two steps that can be taken, that I can think of off the top of my head, are dramatically shortening the working day (so as to eliminate as far as possible exploitation based on surplus labor) and increasing the material comfort of the working class, enabling them to engage more fully and completely in political work, discussion, and leisure.

Whether i agree with those points or not is irrelevent. The fact that you believe that a revolutionay bastion can and should apply pressure to international capitalism through internal (national) political acts proves my point exactly....

That in order for a single country to try and create a socialist economy in a world of capitalism it must by default operate on a national basis. And this nation will need defence. You have a problem with these militias being used for national defence when clearly if chavez is to be successfull, not only does he need to take more aggressive steps towards socialism in the nation of venezuela, but he also will need to defend those steps.

I repeat my question,is your problem with these militias and communes the fact that they operate under capitalism, or because they operate under a state led economy?

A final point: you can't find a more Marxist slogan than "workers have no country." If you don't recognize this, boy do you have a lot of reading to do.

No need to try take the high ground, im sure we have all read alot of books on here. Bit childish that, don't you think. Especially from someone who said this in this very thread... "I haven't done enough reading to know precisely the relations between the communes and the state in Venezuela"

Rusty Shackleford

24th February 2010, 01:14

this may be an unrealistic thought/scenario.

but... you know the spanish republican government? how it suffered a fascist coup? and the workers had to STEAL the weapons from the state to defend the cities. in some cases too late?

Think of Venezuela as the new Republican Spain. now, imagine that coup attempt that happened a few years back. now think of the peasant militias(and possible workers militias) that already exist. if there is a coup(again), the people are TRAINED and ARMED to defend their political gains.

this shit is moving slow because it was a democratic revolution. dont expect the speed of the soviet union, cuba, or even china in its revolutionary years. this is a political revolution, an amazingly non-violent one so far. if bolivia did the same, id be twice as happy.

yes there are flaws in venezuela. but come the fuck on. there is REAL potential here.

the venezuelan state has allowed for communes to exist. speaks positively of workers and peasants rights. actually arms peasants.(though they are not autonomous militias because they are considered a branch of the state military) and is working with other newly democratic socialist countries in latin america. it may not be all we want but its a work in progress.

RaÃºl Duke

24th February 2010, 02:19

Robocommie

24th February 2010, 02:52

To be honest, I have to say I'm very impressed by this move, and as long as the peasants remain in control of these militias, instead of tools of state control, I think this is a wonderful idea.

Glenn Beck

24th February 2010, 03:23

cyu

24th February 2010, 06:01

If only a subset of the population has guns and military training, then oppression is a possibility. As we increase the percentage of the population with guns and training in military tactics, then oppression becomes more and more difficult.

This isn't to say a pyramid structure wouldn't be oppressive when 100% of the population can defend themselves, however, a pyramid structure with 100% of the population is less likely to be oppressive than a pyramid structure with 10% or 20% population that is allowed to use weapons.

Of course, it would be even better if there were no pyramid structure at all.

Robocommie

24th February 2010, 06:08

Ultimately I really think it's important to remember the reason these militias have been started. There's a lot of violence and murder at the hands of reactionary land owners, trying to resist the land reform laws, which I should think is a vital part of redeveloping the economy and reducing the need for food imports to Venezuela. So far, 130 landless workers have been murdered by thugs hired by landowners, and these militias are meant to give the peasantry teeth, something to defend the agricultural reforms and the lives of the workers.

That's why I support this.

24th February 2010, 07:24

I welcome this step. Sure Z1915 has a good point when he objects to this being integrated into the capitalist state apparatus, but arming the working class and decentralising state power are progressive developments that aid the working class into emancipating themselves.

RadioRaheem84

24th February 2010, 18:45

Lolshevik

24th February 2010, 19:06

Everyone is so skeptical of the Chavez administration in here its astounding! While, it's good to be cautiously optomistic, the progress being made in Venezuela is leaps and bounds more progressive than anything else in the region.

The concern is whether those militias could be used by the opposition party if they were to gain ahold of the state. But, the people are very supportive of the revolution period. Those militias will be firmly on the side of the revolution no matter what opposition movement decides to slide in. Remember that the peasents had no voice much less militias. The State under Chavez has been firmly on the side of the people, more so than anyone else in the history of Venezuelan politics, and he gets dogged one left and right by people on this forum. I am not saying that everything Chavez has done is great but his administration should be supported against the opposition.

There is a lot of dogmatism (which is understandable) on this board about the top/down socialism of the Chavez administration but when its benefiting the working class, I don't see what the big deal is? I remember dissecting two articles from anarchist websites and they were so blatantly wrong that I was shocked at the blunt dogmatism of the articles.

Just what do people dislike about the Chavez administration?

For my part, I'm afraid he might pull an Allende and get himself killed, not to mention have the venezuelan proletariat slaughtered because he fails to give them a timely lead to bring the revolution to its conclusion.

That said, I'm broadly supportive of the Chavez regime, though I do agree with 100% of the criticism and reservations that my organization, the CWI. has with the situation over here.

The way I see it, Chavez is encouraging the development of proletarian organs of power too slowly and too timidly. But they are developing, and that's a lot better than nothing. If Venezuela is to become a soviet republic, I think it'll happen as a response to a full-on reactionary coup attempt.

RadioRaheem84

24th February 2010, 19:16

I agree and this is the only thing that I have against the administration; is that he is creating an alternative economy right next to the capitalist one. The only thing sustaining the alternative one is State power and once that starts to cut into the capitalist class, things are going to hit the fan.

Chavez was lucky to escape the capitalist class's scorched earth economic attack in the 02-03 period. The working class saved his ass. But I have a feeling that the bigger plans to attack Chavez economically are dormant for now. I just don't know what he's going to do once the two economies clash?

The Vegan Marxist

24th February 2010, 19:36

RadioRaheem84

24th February 2010, 19:59

If anything was to happen such as a world wide coup attempt against Venezuela, that's if they were to form a Soviet Republic, then what would be needed is for all socialists & communists to help fight for Venezuela, especially each & every person here on RevLeft. If any liberated resistance was to form up in a worldwide call for revolution, I believe it would be Venezuela, or even Latin America in general. Latin American Socialism is 21st century Socialism, & we must defend it.

Don't get all Orwell on us. I doubt anything is going to happen with Chavez experimenting his Socialism for the 21st Century which basically amounts to Social Democracy. Of course with the shaky situation all around the world, Venezuelan Bolivarian Revolution is worth defending.

The Vegan Marxist

24th February 2010, 20:14

Don't get all Orwell on us. I doubt anything is going to happen with Chavez experimenting his Socialism for the 21st Century which basically amounts to Social Democracy. Of course with the shaky situation all around the world, Venezuelan Bolivarian Revolution is worth defending.

I'm not saying that it's GOING to happen & to fear it, but we must remain cautious on who advances on who these days, because of the growth in capitalist power.

Ligeia

24th February 2010, 20:50

Don't get all Orwell on us. I doubt anything is going to happen with Chavez experimenting his Socialism for the 21st Century which basically amounts to Social Democracy.
Chavez himself said that he believes that a revolutionary change to socialism is impossible in a single country....
Still, he talks about trying to get there....

Robocommie

24th February 2010, 21:08

For my part, I'm afraid he might pull an Allende and get himself killed, not to mention have the venezuelan proletariat slaughtered because he fails to give them a timely lead to bring the revolution to its conclusion.

To be fair, I think he's worried about that too, both himself being killed, and having the Venezuelan people attacked. He already survived one coup attempt, and then it was mainly because the palace guard was still loyal to him.

They call him paranoid, but I think he's being smartly cautious.

The Vegan Marxist

24th February 2010, 21:23

Chavez himself said that he believes that a revolutionary change to socialism is impossible in a single country....
Still, he talks about trying to get there....

Is it impossible for both Socialism & Communism to be gained in one country or just Communism. Communism yes, but I don't see a problem with implementing Socialism in one country.

manic expression

24th February 2010, 21:34

From what I can tell, this is a great development which pushes the ongoing revolution in Venezuela even further. Chavez once again shows his commitment to empowering the masses in their struggle against the capitalist class.

A final point: you can't find a more Marxist slogan than "workers have no country." If you don't recognize this, boy do you have a lot of reading to do.
:rolleyes: Marx wrote that in the early months of 1848, when the workers had no country, for no country saw working-class state power; the task for revolutionaries was and is to take countries for the workers.

For future reference, the proper annoying pejoritive is "ultra-left".
You said it.

Ligeia

24th February 2010, 22:36

Is it impossible for both Socialism & Communism to be gained in one country or just Communism. Communism yes, but I don't see a problem with implementing Socialism in one country.
I guess it's about being in constant danger of being overtaken by capitalist countries and furthermore there maybe an economic side to this.
Well, what I've gathered from an interview I've seen once, is that his concern lies within vulnerability, fear of being dominated/colonised again. His socialism is much more a product of Bolivarian ideas...in the sense of anti-imperialism,unity in a region to counter it..and social and political equality to develop freely...which he all sees in congruence with Marxism, too.

scarletghoul

24th February 2010, 22:36

This is pretty awesome. If Chavez can expand military power directly to the oppressed classes then the revolution will be much stronger. With every gun given to the workers and peasants, the Allende outcome becomes less and less likely. So does foreign invasion.

It also makes sure that the revolution stays revolutionary and on the side of the masses.

cyu

25th February 2010, 00:33

If Chavez can expand military power directly to the oppressed classes then the revolution will be much stronger. With every gun given to the workers and peasants, the Allende outcome becomes less and less likely. So does foreign invasion.

Exactly - I think Chavez, his advisors, and the Venezuelan left learned Allende's lesson quite well. This very thread is about them seeing reality for what it is, and choosing to move further and further away from a possible Allende situation.

pranabjyoti

25th February 2010, 16:05

From what I can tell, this is a great development which pushes the ongoing revolution in Venezuela even further. Chavez once again shows his commitment to empowering the masses in their struggle against the capitalist class.

:rolleyes: Marx wrote that in the early months of 1848, when the workers had no country, for no country saw working-class state power; the task for revolutionaries was and is to take countries for the workers.

You said it.
Workers have no country doesn't mean "the working class doesn't have fronts to win". Take a single country as a single battlefield and the coming to power in any country mean winning a battle for working class. That doesn't mean the WAR IS OVER. The war will be only over when we can conquer the whole world. I hope all in this thread can make the difference.

Rusty Shackleford

25th February 2010, 17:28

Workers have no country doesn't mean "the working class doesn't have fronts to win". Take a single country as a single battlefield and the coming to power in any country mean winning a battle for working class. That doesn't mean the WAR IS OVER. The war will be only over when we can conquer the whole world. I hope all in this thread can make the difference.
i believe it is true that workers have no country. the ALBA Alliance seems to offer the most for the working class at this time. the workign class at this point doesnt have to take a single thing from venezuela. all they have to do is organize and ask for it(at least im guessing) if 184 communes already exist then fuckin'-a id say the state is working more in the working class' interests.
Evo Morales was not of the bourgeoisie. he was a cocalero all his life. constantly active in his union and then ran for presidency for the party MAS (Movmiento a Socialismo) Movement towards Socialism. the FIRST indigenous president of Bolivia who has spent his WHOLE life with his union sounds like a damn good deal to me. and he didnt have to violently take power which is a plus.

sure some of their policies had to be watered down for elections but once there is a firm class consciousness growing things can become more radical.

Venezuela will not reach socialism alone. it already has a socialistic ally, cuba, to assist it and a small bloc in the making to give it trading partners for the future and to assist with regional defense, but if more countries start to become radicalized then socialism has even more of a fighting chance in latin america.

So, what im saying is i agree with you pranabjyoti but i dont think socialism will be fully achieved until more battles are won. MAS has the perfect name for what is going on in South America.(sorry for bolding some weird text error)

pranabjyoti

25th February 2010, 17:53

Rusty Shackleford

25th February 2010, 18:06

But, so far, the problem with Venezuela and Cuba and other Alba countries is their view towards other revolutionary organizations who are on the way of armed struggle. Recently, they (both Venezuela and Cuba) have supported the fascist Rajapakshe Government of SriLanka. Their ties with pseudo communist parties like CPI, CPI(M) is also some very bad strategies, if they really want world revolution. At least, I can not support the policy of supporting reactionary Governments from the so called third world countries in the name of diplomacy and thus opposing the armed struggle going on there.
i will not stop defending venezuela but what you said shows the flaws that exist within these movements.

i kind of think of hugo chavez as an excited kid when acting as international diplomat. hey may be opportunistic but there have been some great advancements in venezuela.

Robocommie

25th February 2010, 18:14

i will not stop defending venezuela but what you said shows the flaws that exist within these movements.

i kind of think of hugo chavez as an excited kid when acting as international diplomat. hey may be opportunistic but there have been some great advancements in venezuela.

I agree. If we wait for socialist leaders to be flawless in their exercise of policy, if we expect them to be perfect in their friendships, then we'll never make any strides at all. We can criticize while also showing support - indeed that is the essence of a democratic society.

RadioRaheem84

25th February 2010, 18:23

Indeed, this movement is bigger than Chavez. It should be supported. It's probably one of the biggest things to happen to us in our lifetime and we're just criticizing it for not perfect. C'mon guys! Progress is really happening in Venezuela and the Western powers want to stop it.

The Vegan Marxist

25th February 2010, 20:18

^ Exactly! The #1 problem right now for people is the acceptance that both Venezuela & Cuba are not dictatorships, nor are the leaders (or former leader) dictators. There's a few socialist/communists in my Video Game design class & we always tend to talk politics, but one thing that pissed me off was this Liberal-Socialist friend of mine who, at first made the comment that 'yes, both cuba & venezuela have done a lot for their people & have great economical & agricultural policies set in', but then his next comment is what stunned me, 'but seriously, those guys are dictators!'.

RadioRaheem84

25th February 2010, 20:25

How could he think that Chavez was a dictator? He is anything but. Cuba I can understand his concern but Venezuela? C'mon, it high time socialists stopped believing the mainstream press.

Marxist

25th February 2010, 20:25

Over 180 communes, the peasants & workers are getting armed & supported by Chavez & the state, if this isn't a clear successful road towards communism, then I don't know what is.
Full agreement with that !

RadioRaheem84

25th February 2010, 20:38

I think that a lot of leftists are weary of supporting Chavez because of the bad rap he's received in the mainstream and even liberal-progressive press. Believe me, I am the least authoritarian person you will ever meet, and I think that Chavez is doing more for democratic control of the means of production that anyone has been doing in a long time. In fact, there is more to support here as the Chavez administration has gone out is way to appease the capitalist class, almost as a detriment to his cause, ir order to avoid total conflict. The administration though is setting up the foundation for socialist revolution.

Uppercut

25th February 2010, 21:02

Robocommie

25th February 2010, 21:42

I don't see why some are looking at these militias as a bad thing. Why would the government arm and train the people, only to fuck them over later on? They can't! An armed population is much more difficult to suppress. And who cares if they're funded by the state? It doesn't make any difference to me whether the workers arm themselves independently or if the state lends them a hand. The end result is still a prepared and strongly armed population.

Frankly it does seem a bit weird, the idea that these peasant militias could be used to oppress themselves. I don't think these are some kind of oprichnina.

It would be worrying if Chavez announced he was garrisoning the countryside with troops from the cities, but this is not that.

The Vegan Marxist

25th February 2010, 21:44

Trust me, if you want excuses on why people would perceive these militias as state-run problems that could lead to the hands of the opposition, then simply start talking to all the anarchists that run the Anti-Flag forum.

RadioRaheem84

25th February 2010, 21:52

RaÃºl Duke

25th February 2010, 23:16

I don't understand Anarchists at all. Are they just dogmatic in their beliefs? I mean while it's good to be skeptical of state power and especially top/down socialism, the Chavez administration is leaps and bounds better than the opposition and the previous administrations that ran the Venezuelan government.

I read through some anti-Chavez articles written by anarchists and they were just plain wrong about everything but dogmatic about theory. It's the same with their criticism of Chomsky.

Perhaps you are right, but I'm isolated from most anarchists...

Are you implying that I'm being dogmatic though? You should have used "some anarchists" in your paragraph.

Yes, I'm a bit skeptical about what angle the state might be using these militias but I'm also a bit supportive because it does open a realm of possibilities, some negative and others positive.

For example, if the opposition instituted a coup and assuming that the PSUV dissolves or becomes weakened one could see these militias leading a possible uprising that may end up with more power to the farmworker/peasant (plus maybe even the urban working class, if they also take an active role in the uprising). Perhaps they'll (if the urban working class also joins) institute actual socialism in some model akin to the Paris Commune (i.e. more organs of popular control, a weak and mostly irrelevant central state who's only purpose is possibly as a rally point for the concept of the "Bolivarian Social Republic."). However a negative example might be seeing these militias used in conjunction with the military as a tool to strike down an urban working uprising (not sure if that's likely though...perhaps the militias do not have the range to operate outside the countryside).

Taking this critical view is more sensible...

Red Commissar

25th February 2010, 23:34

I guess I'll take a skeptical approach to this and wonder if this won't be abused to create a paramilitary force. This being said, it will be interesting if used correctly, but I think somehow that Chavez is making some backup plans in the event of an attempted coup.

The Vegan Marxist

25th February 2010, 23:39

Well, given that Chavez has been highly open with the working class & peasants of venezuela, & the majority of his support come from working class & peasants, I'd highly doubt that the armed peasants would be used to implement a paramilitary force. If Chavez was somehow to start taking the oppositions way & actually started going against the working class, the peasants, in all seriousness, wouldn't hardly act towards Chavez's side & would more than likely help the working class & other peasants being screwed over by Chavez.

RadioRaheem84

26th February 2010, 00:17

Are you implying that I'm being dogmatic though? You should have used "some anarchists" in your paragraph.

I shouldn't have as my views are closer to Anarchism anyways. I apologize. I was just disappointed by some of the views of anarchists on Chavez. It seems like it was mostly an objection to his administration out of theory rather than an actual observation of policy.

Die Neue Zeit

26th February 2010, 05:05

Well, I gotta say that's a very interesting way of spinning this news. I see it rather differently: what I see here is the state trying to draw ever more layers of society to its own defense. Chavez, as it happens, agrees with me. He sees the peasant militia as an "integral part" of his state apparatus. There is also, of course, some rather disgusting chauvinism and national defensism at work here. Chavez and Figueroa see this not only as a police force, but also as a military force for the defense of the "integrity" and "sovereignty" of "our republic". I don't know about you, but that's the kind of talk I expect to hear from bourgeois leaders, from people who want to stifle the class struggle and bury it in nationalist fantasies. It is not the kind of talk I expect to hear from socialists. It is the kind of talk I expect to hear from Chavez and Chavistas.

I personally don't have problems with the relationship between these new "integral" peasant militias and the current defense apparatus. More power to peasants in the countryside against the landlords and foreign interlopers isn't a bad thing.

What is obviously missing in this whole discussion is the question of worker militias (and the failing of Chavez's petit-bourgeois nationalism on this).

The Vegan Marxist

26th February 2010, 05:31

I personally don't have problems with the relationship between these new peasant militias and the current defense apparatus. More power to peasants in the countryside against the landlords and foreign interlopers isn't a bad thing.

What is obviously missing in this whole discussion is the question of worker militias (and the failing of Chavez's petit-bourgeois nationalism on this).

Well, given first of all that the peasant militias are formed directly for protection of farmers & rural areas, the idea of a workers militia to form up towards the protection of the urban areas seems far from being farfetched. I believe we'll soon be seeing this happen, especially towards the protection of the communes forming up.

Robocommie

26th February 2010, 05:38

Well, given first of all that the peasant militias are formed directly for protection of farmers & rural areas, the idea of a workers militia to form up towards the protection of the urban areas seems far from being farfetched. I believe we'll soon be seeing this happen, especially towards the protection of the communes forming up.

I should point out though that Venezuela's economy probably does not need as much urban build-up as it needs rural buildup. 85% of the country lives in urban areas, that's why they import so much food. From what I've read, the farmlands are in a shambles, either completely neglected or consolidated in large scale latifundias.

If Chavez wants to focus on the country, and on agriculture, I can't wholly blame him because that would increase domestic production and lower the price of grain and other agricultural goods substantially. And besides, the oil industry's already been nationalized.

pranabjyoti

26th February 2010, 06:11

I should point out though that Venezuela's economy probably does not need as much urban build-up as it needs rural buildup. 85% of the country lives in urban areas, that's why they import so much food. From what I've read, the farmlands are in a shambles, either completely neglected or consolidated in large scale latifundias.

If Chavez wants to focus on the country, and on agriculture, I can't wholly blame him because that would increase domestic production and lower the price of grain and other agricultural goods substantially. And besides, the oil industry's already been nationalized.
I am curious to see how Chavez will deal with those latifundias. Those can be easily converted into collective farms and as 85% of the population now live in cities, there would be much less resistance from farmers that CPSU had to face during the collectivization programme of 1928 onwards. Actually, this high % of city dwelling population is a very very positive factor for the future of revolution in Latin American countries. In Asia, as a huge number of people still live in the villages, they are still badly under the influence of old, feudal thoughts and collectivization of land for better agriculture and making other revolutionary reforms and applying that in the villages are still a Himalayan task for revolutionary parties of Asia. And for this reason, there are bigger chances of failure of revolution in Asian countries. But, at least Latin America at present don't have to bear the rotten, heavy body of died feudalism and it can go much more freely into the revolutionary path. Perhaps, due to this reason, revolutionary processes progresses well in Latin America.
The US imperialism always kept the Latin American countries as it's harem and slaves. It even blocked the way of building capitalism in those countries because that will shrunk the US market. If, in future, the revolutionary process will fail and capitalism will restore in Latin America, that too will be a headache for US, because it is EVEN INCAPABLE OF BEARING CAPITALISM IN LATIN AMERICA. Actually, in my opinion, US by being the greatest enemy of revolution actually become the most friendly factor for the development of revolutions in Latin America and by this process, gives a very very good example of dialectic materialism. I have doubt that without the presence of the US imperialism, perhaps revolutionary processes in Latin America can not flourish at such a rapid rate.

Robocommie

26th February 2010, 06:45

I am curious to see how Chavez will deal with those latifundias. Those can be easily converted into collective farms and as 85% of the population now live in cities, there would be much less resistance from farmers that CPSU had to face during the collectivization programme of 1928 onwards.

I don't think it would be wise to follow in the footsteps of Soviet agricultural collectivization. But attempts at land reform in Zimbabwe and elsewhere, including Russia actually, show that statistically, small plots of privately held land are far more efficient than large scale farms, just in terms of agricultural production.

Right now, the basic gist of Mission Zamora, the land reform initiative in Venezuela as I understand it, is a legal limit on the size of landholdings, a tax on unused land holdings, and the redistribution of unused private land to landless peasants. Unfortunately the program seems to rely on redistribution with compensation to the former owners, instead of straight expropriation, but Chavez is dealing with a lot of resistance from the landlords just doing what he's been doing. If he went all out, he'd probably end up just like Robert Mugabe and Zimbabwe.

pranabjyoti

26th February 2010, 09:45

I don't think it would be wise to follow in the footsteps of Soviet agricultural collectivization. But attempts at land reform in Zimbabwe and elsewhere, including Russia actually, show that statistically, small plots of privately held land are far more efficient than large scale farms, just in terms of agricultural production.
From where you have got such kind of statistics and information. It can only be true, when the mode of production in those big land holdings are BASICALLY FEUDAL. If what you have said is true, then USA would have implemented it and instead of big industrialized agricultural farms, there would be small landowners and their primitive third worldly farms there.
Even Churchill, on an interview, confessed that without the collectivization, USSR don't have a chance against Nazi Germany in WWII. In the initial phases of USSR, the capital to buy machinery to set up industry has been earned by selling the increased production of the collective farms in international market.
Marx himself was strictly against small plots of agriculture, because small plots reduces the chance of introduction of new technology to very very very ....... small area. The small landholder rarely has the capital, the education and will to apply machinery and increase productivity. And without increasing productivity, he/she will gradually lags behind industrial workers and this give birth to anti worker feeling in his/her psychology, which at the end will go against working class. I MYSELF HAVE NOTICED IT IN MY COUNTRY INDIA.
Well, there may be statistics, but those statistics doesn't inform about the productivity of labor of the small landholder. In fact, if you observe closely, you can find out the the increased productivity (in terms of land, not labor) comes at a price, hard labor of the landowner and very soon this blind ally of INCREASED PRODUCTION WILL COME TO AN ABRUPT END.

REDSOX

26th February 2010, 14:31

The peasent militias and the bolivarian militias (the urban militias) are a great step forward in the building of a socialist state. The chavists have created the communual councils and the communes and now the miltias in the countryside and the urban areas. The land reform has some way to go though. In several years the government has seized 1505 farms covering 2.5 million hectares. This land is mostly idle although some of it is productive. I feel that a 2nd agrarian law is needed restricting holdings and seizing large productive land like they did in cuba because until the landed oligarchy is expropriated the killings will continue even with a peasent militia around. Now that these miltias have been created in the barrios and the countryside we await the creation of the third component of the revolution, The workers councils and militas.

Patchd

26th February 2010, 14:43

Frankly it does seem a bit weird, the idea that these peasant militias could be used to oppress themselves. I don't think these are some kind of oprichnina.
What use does the National Guard play in the USA then? Militias are formed organically, not by the state.

The Vegan Marxist

26th February 2010, 18:01

What use does the National Guard play in the USA then? Militias are formed organically, not by the state.

One has to look at each's background though. The national guard, although have working class people in it as well, consists of people who either 1) couldn't make it through school, so instead went to get a GED & then joined, or 2) they're trying to make a quick buck & a paid-for college tuition. Now, if one looks at the Peasant Militias, these are not the type of people who are worried about education, nor care about getting a quick buck. These people are of the struggle & if anything gets in the way of the struggle, or even harms it, they will fight against it. We have two separate types of people, armed under different sets of environmental conditions. When comparing the National Guard with the armed peasants, I'd rather trust those that were within the struggle than those looking for merely money & education.

zimmerwald1915

26th February 2010, 18:43

Anybody else smell sweeping generalizations?

Ligeia

26th February 2010, 19:50

Some bits and pieces of (spanish language) articles which talk about the National Bolivarian Militia (the Peasant Militia is also a part of it) which I translated.

About National Bolivarian Militia:

He said that those graduated as lieutenants of the National Guard, Lieutenants of the army, among others “could be like instructors, as to create the territorial guard in all the districts/barrios, besides sharing and coexisting with the new Armed Forces given to the town”. Chávez, assured that in all the districts of Venezuela militia battalions should be formed, with the aim of avoiding negative situations caused by the oligarchy to happen again.http://www.radiomundial.com.ve/yvke/noticia.php?t=10150&postdays=0&postorder=desc&start=30

The General Commando of the National Militia, is conformed by two layers: the National Reserve, constituted by all the Venezuelan citizens who are not in the active military service , or who have fulfilled military service or who voluntarily joined the units of the reserve; and the Territorial Guard, constituted by all the Venezuelan citizens who voluntarily organize themselves to act as local resistance before any external aggression.http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuerzas_Armadas_de_Venezuela

Workers in the Militia:

From the National Institute of Qualification and Socialist Education (Inces), the Ribas Mission and the Institute of Prevention, Conditions and Environment (Inpsasel) the Government distributes military formation to workers who wish to be part of the working militias in the companies. In the last years the Ribas Mission has also developed courses of formation for the workers who have intentions to train themselves in military matter. Only with these steps, to date 150,000 working militians in strategic state companies exist, according to the member of the Socialist Front of Workers, Orlando Castle.http://boletin.uc.edu.ve/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=32478:el-gobierno-define-la-linea-de-las-milicias-obreras&catid=4:econom&Itemid=5

The member of the national equipment of the Socialist Front of Workers, Orlando Castle, expressed that the labor troops are conformed by workers of the sectors that the Government considers strategic like the petroleum, electricity, basic companies, the transport and the Public Administration. Although he indicated that, besides the basic sectors oil, electrical, companies, transport and communication, the socialist patrols also operate in private companies.http://www.canaldenoticia.com/empresas-estatales-ya-cuentan-con-cerca-de-150-000-milicianos (http://boletin.uc.edu.ve/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=33316:instan-a-usar-tiempo-libre-para-integrarse-a-milicias&catid=4:econom&Itemid=5)

Territorial Militia:

The territorial militia is constituted by the citizens who voluntarily organize themselves to complete functions of the Integral Defense of the Nation, in agreement with the principle of joint responsibility between the State and the civil society; and they will have to be registered by the general command of the National Bolivarian Militia , being under its control and conduction. http://fuerza-armada-bolivariana.blogspot.com/2008/03/milicia-organizacion.html

FSL

27th February 2010, 00:25

Die Neue Zeit

27th February 2010, 07:10

What Would Durruti Do?

27th February 2010, 07:18

manic expression

27th February 2010, 09:09

And what makes you think Venezuelans have different reasons for joining the militia than Americans joining the National Guard?
Probably because these peasant militias are explicitly being formed as a way to counter the threat of the capitalist class, against whom the peasants have been struggling for years and years. The US National Guard is full of people who just want the extra employment. Further, the American state is on the side of the bourgeoisie, we all know this, and since that is not the case in Venezuela, the nature of these peasant militias is entirely different. This should go without saying.

Sure, some peasants might join the militias because they like practicing with guns, or for the social aspect, or just because they think it's cool, but those are exceptions that will always be there. That does nothing to change the character and role of the militias. The point is what the point of the organization is, and that is very clear here: class war, by the masses and for the masses.

zimmerwald1915

27th February 2010, 12:01

since that is not the case in Venezuela
Given that this has yet to be proven, either by logic or in practice, and since your whole argument rests on it, I would think that you'd devote a sentence or two at least to saying why you don't believe the Bolivarian Republic isn't a capitalist state. As opposed to, say, just throwing it out there and assuming we all know and believe it to be true.

manic expression

27th February 2010, 12:14

Given that this has yet to be proven, either by logic or in practice, and since your whole argument rests on it, I would think that you'd devote a sentence or two at least to saying why you don't believe the Bolivarian Republic isn't a capitalist state. As opposed to, say, just throwing it out there and assuming we all know and believe it to be true.
I didn't say Venezuela wasn't capitalist, I said that the Venezuelan state is presently on the side of the workers in their struggles against the entrenched bourgeoisie. In fact, Chavez' government has acted as an anchor, a stabilizing force, for the growing revolutionary movement. We can see this in the policies of Chavez: expropriation of price-gouging firms, mobilization of workers' organizations on many levels (including the one we see here), ending labor disputes by siding with striking workers, restructuring and democratizing education, seizing and redistributing more than 12,000 acres of farmland last March. All these policies show how the Venezuelan state is pushing forward the cause of the masses in Venezuela.

chebol

27th February 2010, 13:15

manic expression wrote:

I didn't say Venezuela wasn't capitalist, I said that the Venezuelan state is presently on the side of the workers in their struggles against the entrenched bourgeoisie. That's not entirely accurate - the Venezuelan *state* is NOT on the side of the workers. The courts, police, church, bureaucracy, sections of the army, and sections of the government are firmly NOT on the workers' and peasants' side, but are on their own side, and more often than not, that means they are on the side of Capital. At present, only a *part* of the Venezuelan state is on the side of the people.

This, on the other hand, is more or less accurate:

In fact, Chavez' government has acted as an anchor, a stabilizing force, for the growing revolutionary movement. We can see this in the policies of Chavez: expropriation of price-gouging firms, mobilization of workers' organizations on many levels (including the one we see here), ending labor disputes by siding with striking workers, restructuring and democratizing education, seizing and redistributing more than 12,000 acres of farmland last March. But, I reiterate, saying that the Chavez government is doing one thing or another is not the same as saying that:

the Venezuelan state is pushing forward the cause of the masses in Venezuela.It is imperative that at this critical juncture revolutionaries learn - and remember - to distinguish between the revolutionary Chavez *government* (with all of its warts and flaws) and the capitalist Venezuelan *state*.

That's what makes the evolution of these new militias vitally important. At the moment, they represent the possibility of the ongoing creation of a workers' and peasants' state - parallel to and (objectively) in opposition to the capitalist state.

But if they are subsumed into the existing state apparatus, there is the danger that they could be induced to play a reactionary role, given the right circumstances and motives.

RadioRaheem84

27th February 2010, 19:06

The Venezuelan State is still largely controlled by the capitalists. Even the Chavez administration is filled with bureaucrats who want to keep the status quo. The gains the people have made have been largely due to putting pressure on the administration to initiate nationalizations and co-operative programs.

But Chavez himself is on the side of the people, this there is no doubt. I've heard from Venezuelans that people trust Chavez, not the people surrounding him. A lot of the people surrounding Chavez (especially at the local level) are merely reformers who still have ties to the old order. They've been throwing monkey wrenches into the Revolution for quite some time and siding with the capitalists in some nationalization schemes. Chavez has caved in on some decisions and ignored the liberals on others.

The State, even with the new Constitution, still respects private property, encourages foreign investment and defends private enterprise as one of the cornerstones of Venezuelan growth. The State, for the longest time, had been largely Social Democratic. It's only been in the last 3-5 years that it's been taking a more revolutionary road. Chavez, for one, has quit mentioning his plans for a "social economy" and has fully endorsed socialism as the path to freedom in Venezuela.

So Chavez has to make a choice. His administration has given the people a huge voice and they're using to voice their concerns. They won't be silenced this time around. Chavez has to either side with the people and further the revolution, meaning he has to sever his ties to the reformers within his ranks or watch the revolution be swallowed up by the capitalist class.

manic expression

27th February 2010, 19:10

True, I should have been more specific. I stand by my post, just replace "state" with "executive".

What Would Durruti Do?

27th February 2010, 21:21

I didn't say Venezuela wasn't capitalist, I said that the Venezuelan state is presently on the side of the workers in their struggles against the entrenched bourgeoisie. In fact, Chavez' government has acted as an anchor, a stabilizing force, for the growing revolutionary movement. We can see this in the policies of Chavez: expropriation of price-gouging firms, mobilization of workers' organizations on many levels (including the one we see here), ending labor disputes by siding with striking workers, restructuring and democratizing education, seizing and redistributing more than 12,000 acres of farmland last March. All these policies show how the Venezuelan state is pushing forward the cause of the masses in Venezuela.

I don't really see how Chavez claiming to be fighting for the working class makes these peasant militias any different from the American National Guard. They are both still state-operated military forces. Working class individuals join state military forces for the same reasons, no matter what country it is.

RadioRaheem84

27th February 2010, 21:25

I don't really see how Chavez claiming to be fighting for the working class makes these peasant militias any different from the American National Guard. They are both still state-operated military forces. Working class individuals join state military forces for the same reasons, no matter what country it is.

Did you totally miss this part?

The peasant militia will be responsible for protecting poor farmers from mercenary groups organized and financed by ranchers and wealthy landowners, Chavez explained in his weekly column, “Chavez’s Lines” on Sunday. More than 300 peasant leaders and activists have been murdered since the government introduced the Law on Land and Agricultural Development in 2001 and launched a program of agrarian reform.

What Would Durruti Do?

27th February 2010, 23:03

The Vegan Marxist

28th February 2010, 00:21

I did actually, thank you.

But it doesn't really address why people would join the militia. I'm not denying that some people would genuinely be interesting in protecting workers and fighting in class conflict, but it is still just another state military apparatus which doesn't sound much different from Obama's proposed domestic emergency forces IMO.

So you think the peasants are wanting to arm themselves to help keep the status-quo operational through the State? How can you even compare the Peasant Militias with the American National Guard? Just because they're both state-owned does not mean they are of the same reasons. You're looking at this through a black-n-white understanding.

RadioRaheem84

28th February 2010, 00:29

Yeah I don't get the National Guard comparison either.

The Vegan Marxist

28th February 2010, 00:37

Yeah I don't get the National Guard comparison either.

I'm starting to doubt the Anarchists class awareness with their growing paranoia of the State. It's becoming like the conspiracy theorists on government.

RadioRaheem84

28th February 2010, 00:48

I used to have the highest esteem for Anarchist/Libertarian Socialist ideals as IMO, I think they're the real inheritors of the Enlightenment principles on liberty taken to their logical conclusion. But it seems a lot of them have become rather dogmatic in their opposition to the State. I agree with them in their suspicions of State power but it's driven them to be utterly wrong in the case of Venezuela.

I still consider myself to be closer to the Libertarian Socialist school but I can see why Chomsky gets lambasted for his support of certain movements.

Robocommie

28th February 2010, 06:08

From where you have got such kind of statistics and information. It can only be true, when the mode of production in those big land holdings are BASICALLY FEUDAL. If what you have said is true, then USA would have implemented it and instead of big industrialized agricultural farms, there would be small landowners and their primitive third worldly farms there.

Much of this information in particular comes from a journal article I read last summer for a paper I wrote on land reform in Zimbabwe, the author made some compelling arguments in favor of it. At this moment I don't have his name handy. But he cited evidence that showed rather convincingly that the smaller farms run by poor blacks in Zimbabwe were oftentimes more efficient in land usage than the large scale commercial farms run by corporate interests or wealthy white landowners.

As for the United States, the small owners have been pretty much bought out or made obsolete by the rise of large scale factory farms, because they don't have the ability to compete against large amounts of capital. My grandfather was a hog farmer for many years, with no land of his own, he had seen even by the 1960s that the family farm was going to be a thing of the past for that very reason.

Even Churchill, on an interview, confessed that without the collectivization, USSR don't have a chance against Nazi Germany in WWII. In the initial phases of USSR, the capital to buy machinery to set up industry has been earned by selling the increased production of the collective farms in international market.

That was actually part of the problem. By making the resale value of grain a source of revenue for the state, it encourages the state to undermine the workers. In 1948, while the Soviet Union charged 335 rubles for 100 kilos of rye, it would only have paid workers on a kolkhoz farm 8 rubles for those same 100 kilos. That substantial difference of course built the Russian industry, but it also kept the farmers in a sortof neo-serfdom, forced to rely on their small private plots of land for subsistence.

Marx himself was strictly against small plots of agriculture, because small plots reduces the chance of introduction of new technology to very very very ....... small area. The small landholder rarely has the capital, the education and will to apply machinery and increase productivity.

Speaking as the grandson of a hard working farmer, I strongly disagree about the small landholder's will. As for the rest, that would be a fair assessment of the problems of small landholdings. However, it can be easily remedied with the provision of a state-established trust, which would have the mandate of purchasing and providing farm equipment to farmers, with a proper industrial base it could be extremely helpful. Something similar was also done in Zimbabwe, but unfortunately, without a healthy trade balance or a domestic machine industry (both of which Zimbabwe is completely without) the farm equipment becomes expensive statues as soon as a spare part is needed. And as education goes, oftentimes rural farm workers already know what to do, because they've been doing it for the wealthy landowners, oftentimes for years. But even in those cases where they do not, there's no reason a state-provided education can't help that. Agronomy is a very popular subject studied here in the Midwest, in university.

Frankly, I'm not going to necessarily dismiss collectivized farming outright, but it needs to be done on a voluntary basis, and it needs to be properly organized. One of the reasons I am in favor of giving smaller plots of land to landless peasants is that as I see it, the land most properly belongs to those who till it. Land redistribution gives farmers a solid base of financial autonomy, and with a secure agricultural base, the economy can at least rest assured knowing that if all else fails, there will be food in the country.

pranabjyoti

28th February 2010, 07:45

Much of this information in particular comes from a journal article I read last summer for a paper I wrote on land reform in Zimbabwe, the author made some compelling arguments in favor of it. At this moment I don't have his name handy. But he cited evidence that showed rather convincingly that the smaller farms run by poor blacks in Zimbabwe were oftentimes more efficient in land usage than the large scale commercial farms run by corporate interests or wealthy white landowners.
I can guess that there is hardly any mention of labor productivity in that article. I think what happened in Zimbabwe isn't a model case and if so, the small US farmers can not be uprooted by the introduction of factory farming, which you yourself have later said.

As for the United States, the small owners have been pretty much bought out or made obsolete by the rise of large scale factory farms, because they don't have the ability to compete against large amounts of capital. My grandfather was a hog farmer for many years, with no land of his own, he had seen even by the 1960s that the family farm was going to be a thing of the past for that very reason.
Do you think factory farming is possible with small landholdings. Actually, with big farms, I just want to say factory farming i.e. introduction of mechanization and automation in farming, which will increase productivity.

That was actually part of the problem. By making the resale value of grain a source of revenue for the state, it encourages the state to undermine the workers. In 1948, while the Soviet Union charged 335 rubles for 100 kilos of rye, it would only have paid workers on a kolkhoz farm 8 rubles for those same 100 kilos. That substantial difference of course built the Russian industry, but it also kept the farmers in a sortof neo-serfdom, forced to rely on their small private plots of land for subsistence.
Actually, you forgot the welfare measures that been delivered to the kolkhoz farmers by the state. In today's Cuba, the salary of workers is comparatively low even in comparison to the industry workers of India. But, when you put free education, free healthcare and delivery of other necessary products (though in limited quantity), then you can understand that wage in reality isn't as low as it seems with the salary sheet. Actually, this is a good example that the how to use the surpluses of production. Can you give me any idea about what was read monthly income of those farmers during the Tsarist era and what was the real monthly income (including free stateowned facilities) of the farmers when they are engaged in kolkhoz?

Speaking as the grandson of a hard working farmer, I strongly disagree about the small landholder's will. As for the rest, that would be a fair assessment of the problems of small landholdings. However, it can be easily remedied with the provision of a state-established trust, which would have the mandate of purchasing and providing farm equipment to farmers, with a proper industrial base it could be extremely helpful. Something similar was also done in Zimbabwe, but unfortunately, without a healthy trade balance or a domestic machine industry (both of which Zimbabwe is completely without) the farm equipment becomes expensive statues as soon as a spare part is needed. And as education goes, oftentimes rural farm workers already know what to do, because they've been doing it for the wealthy landowners, oftentimes for years. But even in those cases where they do not, there's no reason a state-provided education can't help that. Agronomy is a very popular subject studied here in the Midwest, in university.

Frankly, I'm not going to necessarily dismiss collectivized farming outright, but it needs to be done on a voluntary basis, and it needs to be properly organized. One of the reasons I am in favor of giving smaller plots of land to landless peasants is that as I see it, the land most properly belongs to those who till it. Land redistribution gives farmers a solid base of financial autonomy, and with a secure agricultural base, the economy can at least rest assured knowing that if all else fails, there will be food in the country.
Sorry, you don't have any idea about the ill effects of small landholding, which, in my India, I am facing as a part of the organized sector. As the chance of increase of productivity of small landholders is very small, so in comparison their real income rarely increases. At least it can be said that they lag far behind industrial workers. This gives rise to a feeling of envy in their mind and slowly they began to turn reactionary. They often say "yes" to anti worker reactionary demands and for that reason, the workers struggle in India is facing a great trouble.
Despite the "surfdom", both the production and productivity of USSR increased during and after the collectivization. If the collectivization programme wasn't continued, perhaps those "surf" would be in the most distress than anybody else in the world. Actually, it's a very good example of petty-bourgeoisie mentality, that always demands maximum but is willing to share minimum. Probably due to their own landownership, the peasants are in more poverty than anything else.

Patchd

5th March 2010, 00:55

One has to look at each's background though. The national guard, although have working class people in it as well, consists of people who either 1) couldn't make it through school, so instead went to get a GED & then joined, or 2) they're trying to make a quick buck & a paid-for college tuition. Now, if one looks at the Peasant Militias, these are not the type of people who are worried about education, nor care about getting a quick buck. These people are of the struggle & if anything gets in the way of the struggle, or even harms it, they will fight against it. We have two separate types of people, armed under different sets of environmental conditions. When comparing the National Guard with the armed peasants, I'd rather trust those that were within the struggle than those looking for merely money & education.
Sorry I missed this :blushing:
I'm in favour of workers and peasants having guns, by all means, if the Venezuelan state is arming the people, then that's a bonus for the people. Still however, whilst the workers and peasants militias are being controlled and formulated by the state, it's agenda will follow that of the state's. This is the same state that breaks strikes, intimidates workers, and sides with anti-worker nation state leaders.

Yes, it's brought about massive improvements for the Venezuelan working class, no one is doubting that, but it's a social democracy more than anything else. That's still a form of capitalism whatever Chavez's rhetoric. But if the peasants and workers have guns, then good! We'll see if they can put them to good use when they have to rid themselves of their bourgeoisie and the state that protects the capitalists, unless the guns are confiscated off them beforehand. Hey, you know, just saying, it happened in Chile under Allende, he wouldn't even give the workers their guns back even though many were siding with him against the right wing because he was too scared the workers will want more autonomy and have the ability to take it for themselves. Just saying.

The Douche

5th March 2010, 01:47

I'm starting to doubt the Anarchists class awareness with their growing paranoia of the State. It's becoming like the conspiracy theorists on government.

LOL why do anarchists hate the state so much? They should be like me and support the shining path.

You fucking moron, if you don't understand why anarchist don't support the state then maybe you should do a little fucking investigation.

I know why you support Chavez, I know why you support the russian revolution, I get why people support the Chinese and Cuban revolutions etc. I don't agree, but I understand their theoretical groundings.

If you think anarchists are "paranoid" of the state then I am forced to believe that you don't know what anarchism is outside of listening to a crass album.

RadioRaheem84

5th March 2010, 02:11

I know why you support Chavez, I know why you support the russian revolution, I get why people support the Chinese and Cuban revolutions etc. I don't agree, but I understand their theoretical groundings.Chavez's Bolivarian Revolution is one of the most progressive things to happen to Latin America. With all of it's faults and reformers mucking up the gain of the workers, it's been by far one of the best things to happen to the working class in Venezuela.

You should do more research on it than simply compare lambasting it. The problem Vegan Marxist has with the Anarchists is the same I have been noticing for quite a while now; their blatant dogmatism. I consider myself to be more ideologically libertarian-socialist but the disregard for the Bolivarian Revolution has me disillusioned with the anarchist camp. I have encountered two articles on Venezuela on an Anarchist website that were chock full of errors due to their ideological puritanism.

Read my post above on the current situation of the Bolivarian Revolution. It's a difficult road for the workers because they've had to deal with reformers and bureaucrats throwing monkey wrenches into their plans but the workers are firmly on the side of revolution and Chavez.

pranabjyoti

5th March 2010, 14:12

In such a scenario, I think what can be most helpful to the workers of Venezuela is strong international support. But, sorry to say, the Bolivarian revolution is still limited by its latinocentric view.

The Douche

5th March 2010, 14:15

Chavez's Bolivarian Revolution is one of the most progressive things to happen to Latin America. With all of it's faults and reformers mucking up the gain of the workers, it's been by far one of the best things to happen to the working class in Venezuela.

You should do more research on it than simply compare lambasting it. The problem Vegan Marxist has with the Anarchists is the same I have been noticing for quite a while now; their blatant dogmatism. I consider myself to be more ideologically libertarian-socialist but the disregard for the Bolivarian Revolution has me disillusioned with the anarchist camp. I have encountered two articles on Venezuela on an Anarchist website that were chock full of errors due to their ideological puritanism.

Read my post above on the current situation of the Bolivarian Revolution. It's a difficult road for the workers because they've had to deal with reformers and bureaucrats throwing monkey wrenches into their plans but the workers are firmly on the side of revolution and Chavez.

You are making my point for me. The people aren't making this revolution themselves, Chavez is. And it is progressive nobody is arguing that, we're just saying that its not as progressive as other want to make it. Private property and the bourgeosie are still firmly entrentched in Venezuela. I think you also ought to look at the lack of support that the "revolution" recieves from the established revolutionary groups in the country.

I see no reason all these gains won't just be undone once he looses power, and if the workers were really being empowered, then why haven't they actually carried out revolution?

Patchd

5th March 2010, 18:13

You should do more research on it than simply compare lambasting it. The problem Vegan Marxist has with the Anarchists is the same I have been noticing for quite a while now; their blatant dogmatism. I consider myself to be more ideologically libertarian-socialist but the disregard for the Bolivarian Revolution has me disillusioned with the anarchist camp.
And there was me thinking breaking strikes, intimidation of workers, maintaining the current capitalist system and it's state which daily attacks and suppresses workers, was more likely to make you disillusioned, but I guess it's just our petty dogmatism! :rolleyes:

I made quite a fat post on it, in this post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1620334&postcount=65).

RadioRaheem84

5th March 2010, 19:48

And there was me thinking breaking strikes, intimidation of workers, maintaining the current capitalist system and it's state which daily attacks and suppresses workers, was more likely to make you disillusioned, but I guess it's just our petty dogmatism! :rolleyes:

I made quite a fat post on it, in this post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1620334&postcount=65).

Yes it is:

The first story was from Venezuela Analysis, an excellent source on the Bolivarian Revolution and usually pro-Chavez. The article mentioned that the state was investigating the police and you go off into a tirade about how they should've been sentenced blah, blah:

http://www.marxist.com/killing-mitsubishi-workers-what-really-happened.htm

This conflict goes at the heart of the challenges the Bolivarian revolution is facing. The revolutionary movement has aroused the working class. A new, militant class-struggle based trade union movement has been created and is now on the offensive. The rotten and reactionary capitalist class in Venezuela has proven once and again that they are prepared to use all means at their disposal to smash the revolution and put down the workers and the people again. The workers are enthused by the ideas of socialism, workers' control, etc. They feel confident. However, ten years after the beginning of the Bolivarian revolution, the oligarchy still controls key sectors of the economy and holds key positions in the state apparatus (as was clearly shown in this case). Unless power is wrested away from the capitalists, the revolution cannot begin to address the task of building socialism. And the more this is delayed, the graver the danger of disillusionment and demoralisation amongst the Bolivarian masses, as shown by the results of the last two electoral contests.
Also on Friday, president Chavez made a televised statement in which he said that in a conflict between the powerful and the weak he instinctively sided with the weak and that he felt strongly for the workers killed. He correctly linked the events to the campaign of violence and destabilisation being carried out by the opposition in the run up to the constitutional amendment referendum on February 15. But at the end of his statement he also repeated insinuations that armed people might have been present in the factory (referring to a different case and not mentioning MMC workers directly). This also seems to indicate that bureaucrats within the Bolivarian movement are interested in spreading this lie.
Scandalously, these insinuations were repeated by Rafael Vega, general secretary of the Anzoategui governor. He added that there were "intransigent elements" amongst the workers and that they were also responsible for the conflict. This is a scandalous statement on the part of a so-called "revolutionary", which indicates that elements high up in the state bureaucracy in Anzoategui had probably given the green light for the police to accompany the judge (after all, the Anzoategui Police does not respond to the judicial power, but rather to the governorship).
“The sad thing about this tragic event in ‘a time of revolution’ is that it is not the first time that such a thing has happened … The workers of the Fundimeca [air conditioning factory] in Valencia, those of Alpina in Villa de Cura, …the workers of the Sidor [steel factory] in Puerto Ordaz or the fuel workers in front of the offices of the Venezuelan Fuel Corporation Dairy Story (Anzoategui) have already suffered…the violence…of the police, incited by corrupt judges at the service of capital,” the press release continued.-Press Release, National Union of Workers (UNETE), the Classist, Revolutionary, Autonomous Current (CCURA)

“The main responsibility for the murders of the workers…is the transnational [Mitsubishi]. The government and the respective authorities shouldn’t only investigate the police and the judges, but also establish the responsibility of this transnational.”- Christian Pereira, trade union leader of the motor sector and member of Socialist Tide

“Enough already, there can’t be one more unpunished murder of workers in conflict. In our opinion its about …a new method...planned by business, law, and police mafia, together with some political leaders to try to confront the workers struggles that have strengthened because of the revolutionary situation that we have been living for a while… and employer political sabotage to destabilize the government.”-Stalin Perez Borges, national coordinator of UNETE

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/4172

None of the workers blame Chavez or the Revolution but elements within the State (including Chavez administration), the local government, the corporation and the police.

http://www.marxist.com/sanitarios-maracay-balance-sheet.htm

On Sanitarios Macay, read the part: Sabatoge of bureaucracy

Now SIDOR:

Robbo203:
From your article in Libcom:
Quote:
Another trap used against the movement is the proposition by the unions and various "revolutionary" sectors of Chavism to renationalise SIDOR, which is mainly owned by Argentine capital (the Venezuelan state owns 20% of the shares). This campaign could be a disaster for the struggle, since the workers have no choice but to confront the capitalists, be they Argentine or Venezuelan state bureaucrats. [I]Nationalisation does not mean the disappearance of exploitation; the state-boss, even with a "worker's" face, has no other option than to permanently try to attack workers' wages and working conditions.

Chavez nationalized it a month later:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1111116323562 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/chavez-nationalises-largest-steel-firm/story-0-1111116323562)

Quote:
In his speech on May 21, 2009, Chávez said that he is in favour of workers' control and even of the election of managers by the workers. He also gave a new impulse to the class struggle in Guayana with the nationalization of the briquette companies which are directly linked to SIDOR, Orinoco Iron, Matessi and Tassa. The workers in these factories have now taken concrete steps to organize themselves and are pushing for the implementation of workers' control.
Quote:
It is no exaggeration to say that nationalization was thanks only to the heroic fight and determination of the SIDOR workers who kept struggling despite the boycott of all the media,
http://www.marxist.com/venezuela-nat...rs-control.htm (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxist.com/venezuela-nationalization-sidor-workers-control.htm)

The problems at SIDOR remain, but this is mostly due to the people in charge who are largely anti-Chavez and anti-workers control. They're left over vestiges from the private owners and have kept the conflict going on even after nationalization. Chavez supports the workers though.

Your article made it seem like the workers at SIDOR were mainly protesting the Chavez administration when they were clearly looking for workers control and nationalization. Chavez responded a month later.

Quote:
The workers and their trade union SUTISS (United Trade Union of Steel Workers and Similar Industries) are demanding not only a collective contract but also the re-nationalization of the steel works, since in the last few years the Venezuelan government has talked a lot about reversing privatizations.
Quote:
“If this were a Yankee company, the government would have re-nationalized it long ago”, the workers’ representatives complain. José Melendez, from the executive committee of SUTISS, argued that “what’s good for the rooster is good for the hen”, referring to the need to nationalize all multinational corporations. “In Venezuela we talk about socialism, but our leaders should tell us what socialism they mean, since the capitalists continue to do as they wish at the expense of the workers.”
http://www.permanentrevolution.net/?...try&entry=2024 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.permanentrevolution.net/?view=entry&entry=2024)
April '08 The rest of your post I agree with for the most part but this you're still misrepresenting the situation. The Bolivarian Revolution has given a voice to the people and they are not going back to the way things were before. A majority of the workers trust Chavez just not the people surrounding him or even in high levels of his administration and members of his party. But you and many anarchists seem to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The Revolution is still heavily supported and will continue to be fought for, with or without Chavez. So the man has to make a choice, he either sides with his reformist buddie which coddle the old elite and assure them that this is just a social democratic revolution, or with the people who want it to go all the way to socialism!

Michael Liebowitz has probably the best article on Venezuela out there right now, I implore you to read it:

http://monthlyreview.org/100201lebowitz.php