Venezuela: 43 arrests on union march in Maracay [Archive]

Tifosi

14th March 2010, 14:21

Venezuela: all detainees released and charges dropped following union march in Maracay

All the individuals detained following Friday's demonstration were released late on Friday night, with all charges forgotten following the apparent intervention from someone from on high. Rafael from El Libertario, who was amongst the detained, filed this report:

Quote:
Doing away with all elementary journalistic conventions, I write this report in the first person.
Following the callout by a group of unions to hold a demonstration in the city of Maracay against [the government's] economic measures, the criminalisation of protest and for justice in the cases of workers assassinated for demanding improvements in their conditions, three members of [human rights organisation] Provea - of whom I was one - and two members of the El Libertario newspaper - of which I am also a member - made our way with other companeros from Caracas to show our solidarity.

At approximately 2pm, a group of around 200-300 people congregated on the corner of the Avenidas Bolívar and Ayacucho in the city [of Maracay]. We recognised some faces - old school, left wing union militants, folk from all over the country - but most of the attendees were affiliated to various labour organisations such as the National Workers' Union (UTE). There was a disproportionate number of police present, who quickly started to block access to each of the four streets down which the demonstration would have been able to march. Right from the start, the authorities adopted a confrontational attitude; they were committed to preventing the march from happening. No more than 30 minutes had passed when they started to detonate tear gas bombs in order to disperse the demonstrators before proceeding to detain people indiscriminately.

Having recovered from inhaling an amount of tear gas, I accompanied Robert González - the executive secretary of the Oil Workers' Federation (Federación Petrolera) - as he was being interviewed by TVS Maracay (a regional TV channel). While he spoke to the journalist, a group of more than 30 police surrounded us. As soon as the TV cameras switched off, they pounced on us and, pushing against us, bundled us into the van. Amidst the tussle, they seized and broke my anarchist banner, which read, "FOR LIBERTARIAN AUTONOMY AND AGAINST THE REPRESSION OF SOCIAL MOVEMENTS". Twelve people in total were packed into the police van, including two members of the Workers' League for Socialism (LTS). They didn't tell us what our charges were, or where we were headed.

We arrived at the main police station for Aragua state in the San Jacinto zone [of Maracay]. The rest of the detainees, including a woman, had been forced to sit on the floor, while we just joined the queue. They took our identification documents off us, and, after a while, they took us through into an office where they booked us in. In another room, they made us strip naked, filming our faces with a video camera as we did so. An obese policeman in civilian clothes was asking us, "Who sent you? Who sent you?" Afterwards, they put eight of us in a 2x1m cell alongside an underage kid who told us he had spent 6 months in this cell for aggravated robbery. We weren't able to all sit down at the same time. While the heat slowly suffocated us, the underage kid urinated in a soft drink can.

A low ranking bureaucrat from the Public Prosecutor's office arrived and told us that we were charged with "obstruction of a public highway, incitement of criminal activity and resisting authority". Before leaving, he rather casually informed us that we would be presented in front of the Attorney General the following day. Various Public Defenders came after them, and it was with their mediation that we were eventually able to get out of the hole they had dumped us in. Two Provea lawyers also arrived from Caracas, practically bringing with them the news that the order had come from on high to not only liberate us unconditionally but also to eradicate all evidence of our ever having been in this police station. After another hour of waiting they handed us back our belongings. An intrepid group of companeros had awaited our release, weathering the intermittent, strong rains. We came out together to hugs, kisses, applause and an impromptu rally.

Within a few hours, news of our arrest had echoed around the whole world. Many companeros moved heaven and earth in order to intervene on our behalf, with communiqués crossing seas in rejection of repression and demanding our release and telephone calls coming in from various parts of the globe. In the capital, the cost of having three human right activists in jail was quickly weighed up and the Public Defender contacted the local authorities [in Aragua] personally to demand our immediate liberation.

How I wish that a similar speed was used in dealing with the rest of the cases of individuals detained for demonstrating; if so, there wouldn't be more than 2200 people [in Venezuela] facing court dates after having gone through the same odyssey as us. It is a sad privilege to be afforded this sort of service. However, it doesn't alter the fact that yet another workers' demonstration was blocked and attacked by the authorities. This is now the state's policy; the cases speak for themselves.

A second point relates to what I - finding myself to be tired and lacking in ideas - will call the politics of noise. Our swift liberation - which, as I repeat, is not the case for tens of similar cases - was, to a great extent, the product of the rapid diffusion of the news [of our arrest, not only] on social networks such as Twitter, [but also, and] in particular, the independent mass media. The paradox is that our arrest was covered by many media outlets about whom we hold great reservations - such as Globovisión and El Nacional - but ignored by the media who, hypothetically and theoretically, should be accompanying the popular struggles. A brief example of this is in the [para-state website] Aporrea. Today's demonstration in Maracay didn't exist for a group of people who define themselves as "a popular alternative news agency and an open, interactive billboard for popular movements and workers' movements", yet a strike in Rome did. Neither did they mention the repression or arrest of over 20 workers and union leaders. As I've commented previously, in Venezuela, the news of the "alternative" media must be checked against the private media - not the other way round, like in the rest of the world. On this issue, we must draw the necessary conclusions.

I write this from my house, in the arms of my partner and my mongrel dog, adopted via Aproa [animal welfare organisation which takes in stray dogs and find them homes]. I infinitely owe the ability to sleep with such heartwarming company to the friends who swiftly swung into action; I must thank them personally, and not through the injustice of a list [of names] where I might forget someone. They know who they are and they're only just receiving this text via email. As a human being, an anarchist and a human rights defender I strive to constantly justify their dedication, while continuing on this path, which - if I can just squeeze in this piece of proud pretention - is nothing but accompanying and strengthening the struggles of those people who confront Power [in order to fight] for their rights and their dignity, of which they have as much as I do.

Thank you.

Rafael Uzcategui
13/03/2010
1.02am

It is now believed that the original figure of 43 arrests published by El Universal was inaccurate, and that all the 27 detainees have now been released, as described by Rafael.

Photos of the aborted demonstration and the police response can be seen here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/4428197164/

MortyMingledon

14th March 2010, 15:31

Is Hugo Chavez really someone we want to initiate the fifth international?

I think the media I watch is wayy biased. Chavez is always painted off as a far-left socialist... these articles prove that may not be the case.

Another illusion shattered :crying:

Dimentio

14th March 2010, 15:48

Was the order of the arrests from the federal government or from the state government? Who is the governor of said state?

MortyMingledon

14th March 2010, 16:09

Was the order of the arrests from the federal government or from the state government? Who is the governor of said state?

You're right, I did not consider this. The governor of Aragua state is Rafael Isea, who is a member of Chavez' leftist Revolutionary Bolivarian Movement, but I should not hold Chavez responsible without further information on the issue.

RED DAVE

14th March 2010, 17:26

With regard to Chavez, denial is not only a river in Egypt.

RED DAVE

Red Rebel

15th March 2010, 00:41

Chavez has a lot of trouble with the unions because the unions where very political. I'll try to explain. The Confederación de Trabajadores de Venezuela (CTV), which is historically aligned with the Acción Democrática (AD) party. That has been a party that to furthering the Bolivarian Revolution. Hence a new union has been gaining strength that is in support of the Revolution, Unión Nacional de Trabajadores (UNT).

Capitalist media will continue to attempt to demonize Chavez though... because as always the capitalists are always concerned with the daily struggles that workers face. :rolleyes:

PHUNX

15th March 2010, 03:17

RadioRaheem84

15th March 2010, 04:31

Ridiculous anti-Chavez stuff. Look, I'll wait for this info to come out from Venezuela Analysis or Marxist.org before I read libcom.org.

Contrary to popular belief, Chavez is not a dictator and doesn't have this rule over the local governments like you guys think he does. Look at the situation from the city and state governments. Secondly, not all of Chavez's party members share his views on socialism, many of them are social democrats and would be happy to maintain the status quo and turn the country into another Denmark. The people though want revolution to go all the way and trust Chavez but not the people around him.

Libcom has been consistently dogmatic on the issue of Venezuela and outright wrong about analyzing the struggle of the workers.

Tablo

15th March 2010, 08:36

Libcom is a bit dogmatic, but what can you expect? It is a site for Libertarian Communists. I still love most the stuff they report.

KlÃ©ber

15th March 2010, 14:31

Ridiculous anti-Chavez stuff. Look, I'll wait for this info to come out from Venezuela Analysis or Marxist.org before I read libcom.org.
...
Libcom has been consistently dogmatic on the issue of Venezuela and outright wrong about analyzing the struggle of the workers.

Sorry if I misunderstand you comrade, I'm not the #1 fan of libcom either, but are you saying that it's wrong to report on workers' struggles in Venezuela because it contradicts the rhetoric of Chávez?

Contrary to popular belief, Chavez is not a dictator and doesn't have this rule over the local governments like you guys think he does. Look at the situation from the city and state governments. Secondly, not all of Chavez's party members share his views on socialism, many of them are social democrats and would be happy to maintain the status quo and turn the country into another Denmark. The people though want revolution to go all the way and trust Chavez but not the people around him.
I hear this line every day in political work: Obama is a good king surrounded by corrupt advisors; I have even heard people say, in a good way, that deep down he's a socialist. My response is that we have to look at the actions of the Democratic Party, not the rhetoric of the man they have chosen to use as their public face. The working people don't necessarily want revolution to "go all the way," there needs to be a working-class party advocating that, independent from the bourgeois PSUV.

RadioRaheem84

15th March 2010, 15:17

Sorry if I misunderstand you comrade, I'm not the #1 fan of libcom either, but are you saying that it's wrong to report on workers' struggles in Venezuela because it contradicts the rhetoric of Chávez?

No it's not wrong but libcom has been really wrong before on the situation in Venezuela and I usually wait for Venezuela Anaylsis or even Marxist.org to report on the workers struggle.

I hear this line every day in political work: Obama is a good king surrounded by corrupt advisors; I have even heard people say, in a good way, that deep down he's a socialist. My response is that we have to look at the actions of the Democratic Party, not the rhetoric of the man they have chosen to use as their public face. The working people don't necessarily want revolution to "go all the way," there needs to be a working-class party advocating that, independent from the bourgeois PSUV.Big difference between Obama and Chavez. The actions of Chavez leading the Party, denying some of his advisers has been a real benefit to the people of Venezuela, hence why he is still very popular among the people. But yes, many in his party are simply reformers and wish to maintain the status quo and have no desire for the revolution to go any further than it already has. The PSUV is the best the workers have at the moment but that isn't the point, as Chavez has given workers the voice and the political clout to demand things they once thought were out of reach. This movement has to keep going, with or without Chavez. If he sides with his advisers, well then he's lost the people and the revolution.

KlÃ©ber

15th March 2010, 17:53

Big difference between Obama and Chavez.
Indeed, one rules the strongest imperialist country and the other a marginalized and until recently semi-colonial country, they even have developed unfriendly personal relations, but they both preside over bourgeois production relations and represent bourgeois interests, while adopting reformist rhetoric to appeal to workers.

The PSUV is the best the workers have at the moment but that isn't the point, as Chavez has given workers the voice and the political clout to demand things they once thought were out of reach.
Again, that sounds identical to the most popular defense of our own President. The Democrats are the best the workers currently have, Obama has inspired people by opening the floodgates for workers' hopes for change, etc.

This movement has to keep going, with or without Chavez. If he sides with his advisers, well then he's lost the people and the revolution.
"The people" is an amorphous concept, it includes the bourgeoisie. The national revolution is unlikely to succeed if it does not transition into an international proletarian revolution, if the workers don't take control of it. In order to do that the workers need political independence from the bourgeois military apparatus led by Chávez, which has its own interests and in no circumstances will carry out a genuine socialist revolution. It may be forced to nationalize more of the economy than it has already, but many bourgeois regimes have flirted with nationalizations, going back to Otto von Bismarck.

The PSUV's character is evidenced by its slogan: "Marx, Christ, and Bolívar." It represents that section of the Venezuelan bourgeoisie opposed to US imperialism, and committed to building an alliance (ALBA) of national-populist and social-democratic Latin American governments as an alternate trading bloc to the US imperial sphere. It has taken up the socialist mantle to try and co-opt a left base for itself as a prop against conservative sections of the bourgeoisie (who also have their own working class contingents). This is nothing new, "popular" nationalists in Latin America have been putting on radical airs since Bolívar himself reluctantly allowed black revolutionaries to join his army when he was running out of troops 200 years ago. The fetish for red clothing has a precedent in the Argentine regime of Juan Manuel de Rosas which legally required that people wear red in the spirit of the French Revolution. Chávez is just the latest in a long line of populist bourgeois army officers.

ALBA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolivarian_Alliance_for_the_Americas) is based on the illusion that bourgeois policymakers in other Latin American countries can be convinced, as Manuel Zelaya was, to join it in breaking with the US. To what degree this will be successful is ultimately based on the performance of US capitalism, on which all Latin American economies are still dependent; historically, Latin American nationalist and socialist sentiments have flared up when the US was doing well, and subsided when imperialism stabilized itself. Economic and political successes made by ALBA definitely hurt the waning hegemonic status of US imperialism and are a boon to revolutionary struggles everywhere, but the secessionist ambitions of Bolivian oligarchs, military tensions with Colombia, and most importantly the overthrow of Zelaya by the Honduran military, indicate that it is a very fragile project which is unlikely to ever be accepted by the majority of Latin American capitalists. Its success depends on their support, but this is impossible for the same reasons of petty-bourgeois provincialism that compromised Bolívar's efforts; "The Liberator" even said on his deathbed that he had just "ploughed the waves" and it was all a waste of time

Revolutionary representatives of the working class can not simply hang on to the coattails of Chávez in the hopes that this way the working class will unconsciously arrive at socialism; because even if ALBA's wildest ambitions were successful, the new pan-Latin American state would just be a bourgeois state, maybe even a nascent imperialist state like the "People's" Republic of China. If that were to happen, there needs to be an independent working class party to take the revolution to the next, proletarian, stage. After all, Simón Bolívar himself was no socialist, he was initially even pro-slavery, and he was denounced by Marx for using black troops as cannon fodder; the "Wars of Liberation" against Spanish royalists merely replaced liberal Bourbon officials with racist regimes led by the same creole elites as had enslaved the indigenous and African peoples to begin with. The proletariat has nothing to gain from participation in the US imperialist sphere, but the fantasy of a new Latin American bourgeois superstate is no substitute for a world socialist revolution. To the lies of imperialists and reformists we must counterpose a demand for the United Socialist States of Latin America.

RadioRaheem84

15th March 2010, 18:50

Indeed, one rules the strongest imperialist country and the other a marginalized and until recently semi-colonial country, they even have developed unfriendly personal relations, but they both preside over bourgeois production relations and represent bourgeois interests, while adopting reformist rhetoric to appeal to workers.

A bit much don't you think? There is a night and day difference between Obama and Chavez. Chavez's "rhetoric" has helped a lot of workers gain control of some factories through petro-wealth. I agree that Chavez isn't a true blue socialist but he never even intended to be and the workers of these factories around Venezuela are going to be the ones carrying the revolution all the way through, not Chavez.

Again, that sounds identical to the most popular defense of our own President. The Democrats are the best the workers currently have, Obama has inspired people by opening the floodgates for workers' hopes for change, etc.

What are you talking about? Obama inspired people but did nothing. Chavez inspired workers, they took action, in most cases Chavez supported their efforsts. SIDOR is one example, not a perfect one, but one example nonetheless (one, I may add, that Libcom and the anti-Chavez crowd totally butchered in their media outlets).

Again there is a night and day difference in Chavez and Obama's actions. How can you even begin to compare the two?

"The people" is an amorphous concept, it includes the bourgeoisie. The national revolution is unlikely to succeed if it does not transition into an international proletarian revolution, if the workers don't take control of it. In order to do that the workers need political independence from the bourgeois military apparatus led by Chávez, which has its own interests and in no circumstances will carry out a genuine socialist revolution. It may be forced to nationalize more of the economy than it has already, but many bourgeois regimes have flirted with nationalizations, going back to Otto von Bismarck.

This is the first administration that has even considered the working class in politcal and economic affairs in Venezuela and to you its nothing more than a beourgoise scheme? This is probably the most progressive government to hit that country in a century if not ever and people in here downplay it because there are elements of the old regime still pulling strings! Why must you be so puritanical? The situation is WAY more complex that what you've described, complex enough to lead to civil strife, even within the Chavez camp. There is a struggle to keep the revolution on a course toward socialism in the lower ranks of the Party and among the working class not co-opted by right wign groups. There are right wing elements that want to dismantle the whole thing and there are elements of the beourgoise that are ok with a social democracy and memebers of Chavez's party that are willing to stop there. Why does this situation translate into utter hopelessness and not worth defending? Workers in Venezuela are still defending what Chavez started and will fight one with or without him.

The PSUV's character is evidenced by its slogan: "Marx, Christ, and Bolívar." It represents that section of the Venezuelan bourgeoisie opposed to US imperialism, and committed to building an alliance (ALBA) of national-populist and social-democratic Latin American governments as an alternate trading bloc to the US imperial sphere. It has taken up the socialist mantle to try and co-opt a left base for itself as a prop against conservative sections of the bourgeoisie (who also have their own working class contingents). This is nothing new, "popular" nationalists in Latin America have been putting on radical airs since Bolívar himself reluctantly allowed black revolutionaries to join his army when he was running out of troops 200 years ago. The fetish for red clothing has a precedent in the Argentine regime of Juan Manuel de Rosas which legally required that people wear red in the spirit of the French Revolution. Chávez is just the latest in a long line of populist bourgeois army officers.

Yes, he is a populist as he always said he was. What we have here is a repeat of the Allende situation with reformers and revolutionaries in the party. Some of them are siding with the beorgoise to keep the peace and some are willing to take further steps to implementing socialism. The situation isn't new but would you have been anti-Allende too? Allende would'e only wished to have done in his day what Chavez accomplished today.

(http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolivarian_Alliance_for_the_Americas)ALBA (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolivarian_Alliance_for_the_Americas) is based on the illusion that bourgeois policymakers in other Latin American countries can be convinced, as Manuel Zelaya was, to join it in breaking with the US. To what degree this will be successful is ultimately based on the performance of US capitalism, on which all Latin American economies are still dependent; historically, Latin American nationalist and socialist sentiments have flared up when the US was doing well, and subsided when imperialism stabilized itself. Economic and political successes made by ALBA definitely hurt the waning hegemonic status of US imperialism and are a boon to revolutionary struggles everywhere, but the secessionist ambitions of Bolivian oligarchs, military tensions with Colombia, and most importantly the overthrow of Zelaya by the Honduran military, indicate that it is a very fragile project which is unlikely to ever be accepted by the majority of Latin American capitalists. Its success depends on their support, but this is impossible for the same reasons of petty-bourgeois provincialism that compromised Bolívar's efforts; "The Liberator" even said on his deathbed that he had just "ploughed the waves" and it was all a waste of time

I agree tht Bolivar was no better than George Washington. Not the point though.

Revolutionary representatives of the working class can not simply hang on to the coattails of Chávez in the hopes that this way the working class will unconsciously arrive at socialism; because even if ALBA's wildest ambitions were successful, the new pan-Latin American state would just be a bourgeois state, maybe even a nascent imperialist state like the "People's" Republic of China. If that were to happen, there needs to be an independent working class party to take the revolution to the next, proletarian, stage. After all, Simón Bolívar himself was no socialist, he was initially even pro-slavery, and he was denounced by Marx for using black troops as cannon fodder; the "Wars of Liberation" against Spanish royalists merely replaced liberal Bourbon officials with racist regimes led by the same creole elites as had enslaved the indigenous and African peoples to begin with. The proletariat has nothing to gain from participation in the US imperialist sphere, but the fantasy of a new Latin American bourgeois superstate is no substitute for a world socialist revolution. To the lies of imperialists and reformists we must counterpose a demand for the United Socialist States of Latin America.[/QUOTE]

This is true but again, you're still conflating the revolution in Venezuela to some attempt at creating a PRC. This is not the case. There have been a series of factories being handed over to the workers as they pay off the debt to the state for compensating the owners of those enterprises. Chavez's revolution is very much creating an alternative economy next to the old one and it's creating tensions between revolutionary elements in Chavez's party and reformists.

KlÃ©ber

16th March 2010, 00:30

I think we are generally in agreement here, I just haven't stated my positions properly.

I agree that Chavez isn't a true blue socialist but he never even intended to be and the workers of these factories around Venezuela are going to be the ones carrying the revolution all the way through, not Chavez.Yes, but they can only do that independently of his party, even if they are allied with it against the common imperialist foe.

What are you talking about? Obama inspired people but did nothing. Chavez inspired workers, they took action, in most cases Chavez supported their efforsts.Obama is also smart enough to pitch himself as a defender of the little guy. He supported the workers who occupied the Republic Windows and Doors factory for example.

Again there is a night and day difference in Chavez and Obama's actions. How can you even begin to compare the two? Neither represents the working class.

This is the first administration that has even considered the working class in politcal and economic affairs in Venezuela and to you its nothing more than a beourgoise scheme? This is probably the most progressive government to hit that country in a century if not ever and people in here downplay it because there are elements of the old regime still pulling strings! Why must you be so puritanical?
Actually it's because people like Chávez are nothing new. AD and COPEI have both done "radical" things over the past half-century, like the reforms of Rómulo Betancourt or the nationalization of the oil industry under Rafael Caldera.

The situation is WAY more complex that what you've described, complex enough to lead to civil strife, even within the Chavez camp. There is a struggle to keep the revolution on a course toward socialism in the lower ranks of the Party and among the working class not co-opted by right wign groups.
The factional infighting within the national bourgeoisie only accentuates the need for an independent revolutionary organization that solely represents the interests of the proletariat.

Why does this situation translate into utter hopelessness and not worth defending?It doesn't, I never said that. Obviously the progressive reforms and what workers' power does exist should be defended, as the workers of Petrograd defended Kerensky in 1917, and Venezuelan workers did the same for Chávez in 2002.

The situation isn't new but would you have been anti-Allende too?
That all depends on what is meant by anti-Allende. Militarily defending a government like his against a reactionary coup or an imperialist invasion would be the duty of all class-conscious workers. But it is also necessary to politically oppose bourgeois nationalism in order to carry out a socialist revolution.

Allende would'e only wished to have done in his day what Chavez accomplished today.And the Venezuelan revolution will flounder like the Chilean if the proletariat continues to play the role of backseat passenger.

This is true but again, you're still conflating the revolution in Venezuela to some attempt at creating a PRC. This is not the case.
These trends can not be confined to Venezuela but are part of an upsurge across Latin America and recurrent trends in the history of nationalism and socialism. If the proletariat doesn't assert its own interests, nobody else will.

Chavez's revolution is very much creating an alternative economy next to the old one and it's creating tensions between revolutionary elements in Chavez's party and reformists.We should support every step the PSUV is compelled to take in the right direction, as the national bourgeois forces it represents come into conflict with imperialism, but we should not take that to the extreme of subordinating ourselves completely and waiting for a capitalist party to build socialism.

Nolan

16th March 2010, 00:36

Another illusion shattered http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies2/crying.gif

The only illusion shattered is the one that Libcom is a revolutionary site. It's a pity that their bullshit spills over onto Revleft.

Lol this thread really shows how stupid and dogmatic some anarchists can be. Apparently anything the bourgeois state does is Chavez's fault even though he's proven time and time again to be on the worker's side. Chavez does not = the Venezuelan state.

RadioRaheem84

16th March 2010, 02:12

That all depends on what is meant by anti-Allende. Militarily defending a government like his against a reactionary coup or an imperialist invasion would be the duty of all class-conscious workers. But it is also necessary to politically oppose bourgeois nationalism in order to carry out a socialist revolution.

The part in bold represents everything I've said about Venezuela. The social democrat reformers should be opposed as much as the right wing elements that wish to bring the whole revolution down.

But Chavez has been more in favor of the workers than the social reformers in many instances, hence his general popularity in Venezuela.

Tablo

16th March 2010, 03:04

The only illusion shattered is the one that Libcom is a revolutionary site. It's a pity that their bullshit spills over onto Revleft.

Lol this thread really shows how stupid and dogmatic some anarchists can be. Apparently anything the bourgeois state does is Chavez's fault even though he's proven time and time again to be on the worker's side. Chavez does not = the Venezuelan state.
So it is counter-revolutionary to be critical of Chavez or the Venezuelan state? It is not like every article on that site represents the views of everyone there anyway. The site still provides several reports on working class struggle around the world.

It is ridiculous being called dogmatic by a fucking Marxist-Leninist of all people.

Nolan

16th March 2010, 04:19

So it is counter-revolutionary to be critical of Chavez or the Venezuelan state?

Don't be stupid. I'm referring to bullshit like this followed by ignorant anti-Chavez back-patting. I can't read anything written by anarchists or leftcoms about Venezuela without yelling at the screen in disbelief and disgust. You're worse than the goddamn opposition.

The site still provides several reports on working class struggle around the world.

Yeah I can't wait to see what they say about other revolutions. :rolleyes:

It is ridiculous being called dogmatic by a fucking Marxist-Leninist of all people.

Oh boy, it sure is.:laugh:

Tablo

16th March 2010, 06:36

Don't be stupid. I'm referring to bullshit like this followed by ignorant anti-Chavez back-patting. I can't read anything written by anarchists or leftcoms about Venezuela without yelling at the screen in disbelief and disgust. You're worse than the goddamn opposition.

Yeah I can't wait to see what they say about other revolutions. :rolleyes:

Oh boy, it sure is.:laugh:
I certainly want everything to be grounded in facts from an unbiased perspective, but that is not possible. I understand the problem you have and largely agree that the article is largely anti-Chavez. I do see many things he has done as having been in support of the working class to some degree.

You must not read much of their stuff as they cover a great deal of workers struggles. Maybe it isn't revolutionary enough to you if it isn't done in the name of Marxism or some glorious leader, but many workers out there are doing a lot to simply improve their working conditions.

In all my experiences the Marxist-Leninists are the most dogmatic group of revolutionaries. There are certainly some great individuals out their that have done good work while doing it in the name of Marxist-Leninist theory, but you guys take every chance you get to bash Anarchists, Trotskyists, and Left Communists, just as you did in your above posts.

Devrim

16th March 2010, 08:28

Libcom has been consistently dogmatic on the issue of Venezuela and outright wrong about analyzing the struggle of the workers.

That is the thing about communists. I am not sure if it is correct to call in dogmatic though. I think it is more about having principles.

"Libcom-consistently dogmatically on the side of the working class and against the Capitalist state in Venezuela."

It is not something to be ashamed of really.

Devrim

RadioRaheem84

16th March 2010, 16:05

"Libcom-consistently dogmatically on the side of the working class and against the Capitalist state in Venezuela."

Not really.

Nolan

17th March 2010, 01:31

I certainly want everything to be grounded in facts from an unbiased perspective, but that is not possible. I understand the problem you have and largely agree that the article is largely anti-Chavez. I do see many things he has done as having been in support of the working class to some degree.

To some degree? Chavez has done his best to pull strings for the workers. As head of a bourgeois state, however, he can only do so much. So, now he arms them.

You must not read much of their stuff as they cover a great deal of workers struggles. Maybe it isn't revolutionary enough to you if it isn't done in the name of Marxism or some glorious leader, but many workers out there are doing a lot to simply improve their working conditions.I haven't read much from Libcom since I decided to abandon all leftcom influences in my politics. And no, I don't really care about leaders, as those are replaceable.

I think workers simply trying to improve their conditions isn't revolutionary in and of itself. Only efforts to expropriate owners are. Many that want better working conditions just vote for the social democrats or some other "leftist" faction. Unionized workers in my area do, to my disappointment. We all know how much of a dead end that is. I'm of the opinion that struggle on the part of workers while still recognizing the property rights of the capitalists is little better than reformism. In fact, since class struggle is inevitable, it's what the bourgeoisie want. It's progressive, but it isn't revolutionary. Many of the strikes and walk outs that we see threads about here, while great and worthy of our full support, are not revolutionary in their goals. What's different about Venezuela is that Venezuelan workers have made significant strides toward the day when they themselves can confiscate the property of the capitalists. Not only have workers rallied around the figurehead like Chile or Honduras, but there are now strong workers councils and workers and peasants militias. I really think Venezuela won't get stuck in the social democrat rut. The types that frequent Libcom have a strong tendency to speak from ignorance concerning Venezuela.

In all my experiences the Marxist-Leninists are the most dogmatic group of revolutionaries.You don't want to hear my experiences, not even including this very forum. But I'll give you one: I once had an anarchist tell me he didn't care whether or not class consciousness was growing in Venezuela. What mattered was that Chavez and the state were destroyed. So Chavez is bad. Discussion over. I know better than to think that's the stance of most anarchists, but damn.

There are certainly some great individuals out their that have done good work while doing it in the name of Marxist-Leninist theory, but you guys take every chance you get to bash Anarchists, Trotskyists, and Left Communists, just as you did in your above posts.All significant leftist achievements (excluding the struggle of labor unions in the US, etc. which were Pyrrhic victories in my opinion because in the long run they didn't hurt the power of the bourgeoisie, they have provided a convenient scapegoat for economic problems and now they are rapidly losing their influence among workers. At least the socialist states succeeded in 1. proving its viability and 2. scaring the bejesus out of the imperialists) to date have been done by workers under the leadership of Marxist-Leninist and Marxist-Leninist-Maoist parties. And we have more where that came from even as we speak. I don't know if I would consider anarchist Spain a major achievement. The remaining ones have never done shit but divide the movement and stay on their high horse.

As for the bashing, more often than not there are good reasons for that. Again, just look at posts by users of those tendencies in this thread. I call it when I see it. BS like this makes being a leftist an uphill battle.

KlÃ©ber

17th March 2010, 01:44

Sorry to jump in your guys debate but..

At least the socialist states succeeded in 1. proving its viability
"Socialism in one country" was proven to be viable?

2. scaring the bejesus out of the imperialists
The Russian secret police, and Chinese warlords, initially thought that Marxists weren't a threat, because all they were doing was sitting around and discussing economics. If you really want to choose the ideology that scares the most bejeezus out of our parents' generation, pick some form of fundamentalist Islam.

RadioRaheem84

17th March 2010, 02:13

I just don't understand why anarchists are so bad
at analyzing the Venezuelan situation

Tablo

17th March 2010, 06:12

I just don't understand why anarchists are so bad
at analyzing the Venezuelan situation
I think you should understand the highly critical perspective Anarchists take on. I recognize the positive things going on in that country and have been pleased to see improvements for the workers, but that does not dismiss everything the Venezuelan state does. You have to understand that we will always be highly critical and suspicious of the actions of any government or political leader.

Devrim

17th March 2010, 08:49

The types that frequent Libcom have a strong tendency to speak from ignorance concerning Venezuela.

I presume that you speak from a position of extreme knowledge of everything that goes on in Venezuela. I think the guy who posted that article on Libcom lives there. There are many Spanish speakers who post there, and groups like ours, which have a section in Venezuela.

You don't want to hear my experiences, not even including this very forum. But I'll give you one: I once had an anarchist tell me he didn't care whether or not class consciousness was growing in Venezuela. What mattered was that Chavez and the state were destroyed. So Chavez is bad. Discussion over. I know better than to think that's the stance of most anarchists, but damn.

This is a pretty poor debating tactic. There is lots of rubbish that passes itself off as anarchism, just as there is lots of rubbish that passes itself off as Marxism, for example there is an MP in this country who says we should follow the three 'M's, Mohammed, Marx, and Mustafa Kemal. If I then said that Marxists belive we should follow Mohammed, I think people would laugh at me.

Not only have workers rallied around the figurehead like Chile or Honduras, but there are now strong workers councils and workers and peasants militias.

Of course there are no 'workers' councils' in Venezuela. Workers' councils are organs set up by workers themselves at the height of class struggle, not set up from above by the state. What there is in Venezuela is more like the 'works councils' that exist in many European countries.

Devrim

Devrim

17th March 2010, 08:53

I think you should understand the highly critical perspective Anarchists take on. I recognize the positive things going on in that country and have been pleased to see improvements for the workers, but that does not dismiss everything the Venezuelan state does. You have to understand that we will always be highly critical and suspicious of the actions of any government or political leader.

I think that this shows the weakness of the arguments of some anarchists. The communist left, and of course many anarchists also, are not against capitalism and the state in Venezuela because they are 'highly critical and suspicious of the actions of any government or political leader' in an abstract way, but because there is massive attacks on working class living standards there taking place under the name of socialism. There are no 'improvements for the workers'. Working class living standards have dropped dramatically since Chavez took power.

Devrim

Nolan

17th March 2010, 14:20

Working class living standards have dropped dramatically since Chavez took power.

Devrim

Mmmmk. My family (the part that supports Chavez) would disagree with you, as would authors that have studied the Venezuelan situation such as Parenti. This is the ignorance I was referring to.

Of course, not everything across the board has improved, but calling that the fault of Chavez is like saying Chavez is some kind of omniscient dictator with no opposition in the bourgeois state.

Threads like this show us who the ultra-left will and will not support when revolution comes. So far they are shaping up to be far more of a hindrance than a help.

Nolan

17th March 2010, 14:33

This is a pretty poor debating tactic. There is lots of rubbish that passes itself off as anarchism, just as there is lots of rubbish that passes itself off as Marxism, for example there is an MP in this country who says we should follow the three 'M's, Mohammed, Marx, and Mustafa Kemal. If I then said that Marxists belive we should follow Mohammed, I think people would laugh at me.

Of course, I'm not saying that's the position of most anarchists. Tsukae claimed that Mls were the most dogmatic in his experience, and I wanted to show that it goes both ways.

Of course there are no 'workers' councils' in Venezuela. Workers' councils are organs set up by workers themselves at the height of class struggle, not set up from above by the state. What there is in Venezuela is more like the 'works councils' that exist in many European countries.

Devrim

Lol. So I guess it doesn't count if Chavez calls for them and funds them. Who cares if the working class loves it, they must be ignorant chavistas. After all, everything must be done according to left communist holy scripture.

Read up (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_Communal_Councils)

RadioRaheem84

17th March 2010, 15:25

There are no 'improvements for the workers'. Working class living standards have dropped dramatically since Chavez took power.

Where do you get your info? I believe the opposite it true.

No leftist in here defends Chavez as if he is some sort of demi-god that has healed the wounds of the workers left over from centuries of exploitation but the obvious improvement of their lives is evident in their voices. They're much better off in this progressive movement.

RadioRaheem84

17th March 2010, 15:30

From an 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. 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.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.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.

The Libcom article made it seem as if 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.anonym.to/?http://www.permanentrevolution.net/?view=entry&entry=2024)
April '08

This is the type of childish, dogmatic, ignorance that reflects the anarchist opposition to the situation in Venezuela. It's a very, very, complex situation in which a populist President is balancing social reformers, revolutionaries and reactionaries with two hands, all the while an imperialist power above him waits for him to screw up in order to send him a coup.

Criticism of the state and his administration is needed but the analysis at libcom has consistently proven to be wrong and offer a total misrepresentation of the workers plight.

KlÃ©ber

17th March 2010, 16:35

We should support nationalizations if the state does them; opposing them because "it's no better, there's still a bureaucrat, etc." is ultraleft, it ignores the struggle between foreign imperialists and the local bourgeoisie and the persistence of national illusions in the minds of advanced workers in an oppressed country.. but we shouldn't limit ourselves to calling for nationalization, it's not the same as socialism, only a dictatorship of the proletariat can carry out a socialist revolution.

Still, Democratic Party activists always try to shut me up in public with the same logic, "Obama's tip toeing in the senate right now, the tea party ite types are waiting to move in and take us back to the mccarthy era, stop rocking the boat" etc. Revolutionaries should take advantage of divisions within the bourgeoisie, and not be afraid to make compromises and temporary alliances, but that doesn't mean we should give any play to the bourgeois-nationalist/social-democratic notion, that the workers just need to STFU and everything will turn out fine.

Devrim

17th March 2010, 16:45

Mmmmk. My family (the part that supports Chavez) would disagree with you, as would authors that have studied the Venezuelan situation such as Parenti. This is the ignorance I was referring to.

Yet other people disagree. Our comrades in Venezuela are quite clear that the economic situation for workers is getting worse. What makes our comrades worse informants than your family or US academics.

Of course, not everything across the board has improved, but calling that the fault of Chavez is like saying Chavez is some kind of omniscient dictator with no opposition in the bourgeois state.

I don't think that anyone has suggested that it is all the fault of Chavez, just as everything in Britain isn't the problem of Brown. Chavez is just the chief executive of a capitalist state, and as such implements capitalist policies.

Devrim

Devrim

17th March 2010, 16:47

Of course, I'm not saying that's the position of most anarchists. Tsukae claimed that Mls were the most dogmatic in his experience, and I wanted to show that it goes both ways.

But Marxist-Leninists do at least have some coherence as a current. Saying an 'anarchist' said this, is a bit like saying a 'Marxist' said this.

Lol. So I guess it doesn't count if Chavez calls for them and funds them. Who cares if the working class loves it, they must be ignorant chavistas. After all, everything must be done according to left communist holy scripture.

Most sates in Europe fund some sort of works councils. They are not 'workers' councils', which are based on the self activity of the working class. They can't be instituted from above by definition.

Devrim

Devrim

17th March 2010, 16:51

Where do you get your info? I believe the opposite it true.

Members of our organisation in Venezuela, economic statistics...

Take a look at this post: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=965691&postcount=37

No leftist in here defends Chavez as if he is some sort of demi-god that has healed the wounds of the workers left over from centuries of exploitation but the obvious improvement of their lives is evident in their voices. They're much better off in this progressive movement.

It is not obvious to me. I think that the working class has seen a period of increased impoverishment in Venezuela as it has world wide.

Where do you get your sources?

Devrim

Devrim

17th March 2010, 16:55

This is the type of childish, dogmatic, ignorance that reflects the anarchist opposition to the situation in Venezuela. It's a very, very, complex situation in which a populist President is balancing social reformers, revolutionaries and reactionaries with two hands, all the while an imperialist power above him waits for him to screw up in order to send him a coup.

Criticism of the state and his administration is needed but the analysis at libcom has consistently proven to be wrong and offer a total misrepresentation of the workers plight.

I am not sure what your point is here. Nationalised companies are not wonderful places to work as anyone who works there knows, and one of the the main demands in that strike was for a minimum 53 Bs.F (US$24) daily pay rise. The company was nationalised and the workers didn't get it.

Devrim

RadioRaheem84

17th March 2010, 17:31

but that doesn't mean we should give any play to the bourgeois-nationalist/social-democratic notion, that the workers just need to STFU and everything will turn out fine.Who says that we say that workers should shut the fuck up? The point was that Chavez heard the calls of the workers at SIDOR to nationalize the enterprise. That is key. The rest is up to the workers to keep on fighting for democratic control with or without Chavez.

I am not sure what your point is here. Nationalised companies are not wonderful places to work as anyone who works there knows, and one of the the main demands in that strike was for a minimum 53 Bs.F (US$24) daily pay rise. The company was nationalised and the workers didn't get it.

Devrim The workers called for the enterprise to be nationalized and set up for democratic control. Chavez heard their call and nationalized amid protest by the right wingers not to. The problems still persist, and this is one area in which it is legitimate to criticize Chavez, but libcom totally misrepresented the views of the workers and made it seem like the riots at SIDOR were all Chavez's fault and that the workers didn't want nationalization.

The point is to not pit Chavez as the ultimate baddy, but to pit him as someone that should be held accountable for his rhetoric as the workers continue in their struggle for democracy in the workplace. There are reformers on one end, right wingers on the other and the workers stuck battling both in between. Sometimes Chavez sides with the workers, sometimes with the reformers but never with the right wingers that tried to oust him.

What part of this are you guys not understanding? You guys are attacking the wrong guy. It just seems like you guys are covering your asses in case Chavez gets pitted into the area of history that looks unfavorably at populist presidents. He doesn't rule the place with an iron fist. He doesn't have total control of the economy. It is still largely capitalist and there are competing interests at all levels of the state, including within his own party!

As for the situation and the poor; inflation was up and between 2002 and 2005, the business community executed a scorched earth policy that devastated a lot of what the revolution hoped to accomplish until the administration finally got full control of the petro wealth to implement their social reforms. The situation in Venezuela is much better now for the poor than was before the recession and before Chavez stepped foot into office.
http://www.rethinkvenezuela.com/downloads/ceprpov.htm

Devrim

17th March 2010, 17:53

The workers called for the enterprise to be nationalized and set up for democratic control. Chavez heard their call and nationalized amid protest by the right wingers not to. The problems still persist, and this is one area in which it is legitimate to criticize Chavez, but libcom totally misrepresented the views of the workers and made it seem like the riots at SIDOR were all Chavez's fault and that the workers didn't want nationalization.

Which article are you referring to?

Did the workers get the pay rise that was demanded?

As for the situation and the poor; inflation was up and between 2002 and 2005, the business community executed a scorched earth policy that devastated a lot of what the revolution hoped to accomplish until the administration finally got full control of the petro wealth to implement their social reforms. The situation in Venezuela is much better now for the poor than was before the recession and before Chavez stepped foot into office.
http://www.rethinkvenezuela.com/downloads/ceprpov.htm

I see that you didn't read through the post that I linked too. If you had you would have noticed that I wasn't arguing that poverty levels have not decreased, or that poor people's situation hasn't improved though certainly not as a proportion of GDP. What I was arguing was that working class, which is not the same as 'the poor', living standards are under attack. I will quote for you:

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

The (negative) income growth of the working poor (23% of population) was outstripped by GDP growth by around 34.8%, meaning their relative share of national wealth fell dramatically. They also suffered an absolute real-terms fall in income of around 15.3%...
meaning that the oil-rent bonanza of high oil prices is fuelling a concentration of wealth in the country's richest 3%. Furthermore, the incomes of the 'working poor' have fallen by 15.3% in real terms and 34.8% relative to national wealth, and this in a growing economy where the richest 3% are accruing the lions share of the gains,

Devrim

chimx

17th March 2010, 19:39

Most sates in Europe fund some sort of works councils. They are not 'workers' councils', which are based on the self activity of the working class. They can't be instituted from above by definition.

Do you think top-down councils are inherently negative though? If they are popular among working families, for whatever reason, it seems perfectly feasible for them to quickly become appropriated as an institution of self-activity. Maybe that is what Captain Cuba thinks makes them significant or different in Venezuela?

Die Neue Zeit

18th March 2010, 02:22

To some degree? Chavez has done his best to pull strings for the workers. As head of a bourgeois state, however, he can only do so much. So, now he arms them.

Except that he's has too many interests vested in the state.

Peasant militias? Integrate them into the defense apparatus as much as possible.

Worker militias? Ditto.

[Actually, I'm OK with the former as a form of anti-imperialist defense, but the latter is a no-no.]

Ligeia

18th March 2010, 09:29

Except that he's has too many interests vested in the state.

Peasant militias? Integrate them into the defense apparatus as much as possible.

Worker militias? Ditto.

[Actually, I'm OK with the former as a form of anti-imperialist defense, but the latter is a no-no.]
I remember Chavez saying in some press conference (not too long ago) that if the bourgeoísie want to attack the revolution or strike another coup violently , they would have to deal with a violent revolution directed against them(bourgeoisie) this time (where he would take the lead) but that he'd prefer no violence until then....or something like that.

Patchd

18th March 2010, 12:13

We know the 'left' is fucked when so-called Marxists still have illusions in social democrats.

RadioRaheem84

18th March 2010, 14:53

Yeah all those workers out in the streets trying to further the revolution are really delusional, eh, "comrade"?

RadioRaheem84

18th March 2010, 15:24

What we have going on in Venezuela is very similar to what was happening to Allende in the 70s.

It appeared that at some point Allende would be forced to choose between a policy of populist nationalist legalism … or a Marxist-inspired policy of class polarization which [would] sooner or later lead to a violent confrontation. As it turned out, he tried to pursue both policies at once —with tragic consequences for himself and for Chile.” (Sigmund, p. 127)

Allende was blamed by some Marxists for being at fault for his own demise by pursuing both strategies for social change and social reform. Workers were upset with him, as there were protests by workers on the land reforms, and in the ports etc, as inflation reached pretty high because of the economic war instigated on Allende as he carried out his policies.

There are difference but the similarities are striking:

“Thus while the elections had united the right-wing parties in their struggle against Popular Unity, they had simply deepened the divisions within the Left between reformists and revolutionaries.” (Roxborough, p. 206).

On the one hand, it could not postpone the socialist transition to an indeterminate future because that would alienate their own supporters, but the constitutional and peaceful transition to socialism pushed by its gradualist wing (represented by the Communist and Radical parties and Allende’s faction of the Socialist Party) wasn’t possible due to the minority status of the Popular Unity.
On the other hand, the extreme, revolutionary left inside (the Altamirano faction of the Socialist Party) and outside the Popular Unity (the MIR and the Christian Left), itself a minority within a minority, could not impose a rapid transition to socialism but anyhow began creating a “dual power” situation similar to the early Russian Revolution, in which the cordones industriales (industrial parks), campamentos (squatter neighborhoods) and poblaciones (slum-dwellers) of the main cities would form Soviets and become the basis of a worker-peasant army that “co-coordinated with a more protracted guerrilla campaign in the southern provinces” would eventually be capable of engaging and beating the Chilean armed forces
. (Roxborough, pp. 71-73; Moss, pp. 101-103, 107)

I think that you guys mistake the cautious support for Chavez as some sort of uncritical praise for the man. Far from it. He has to decide now which side of the fence, that he's been sitting on for years, is he going to jump off from.

And his own Socialist Party, at its Congress in January 1971, had stated that “the special conditions under which Popular Unity came to power oblige it to observe the limits of a bourgeois state for now” and had warned its members to prepare for “the decisive confrontation with the bourgeoisie and imperialism.” (Sigmund, footnote 7/12)

Ian Roxborough, Phil O’Brien & Jackie Roddick, Chile: The State and Revolution (http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FChile-state-revolution-Ian-Roxborough%2Fdp%2F0841902348%2Fsr%3D1-1%2Fqid%3D1170611386%3Fie%3DUTF8%26s%3Dbooks&tag=chicagoboyz-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325)http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=chicagoboyz-20&l=ur2&o=1, Holmes & Meier, New York, 1977
Robert Moss, Chile’s Marxist Experiment (http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FChiles-Marxist-Experiment-Robert-Moss%2Fdp%2FB000GZS7HM%2Fsr%3D1-1%2Fqid%3D1170611657%3Fie%3DUTF8%26s%3Dbooks&tag=chicagoboyz-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325)http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=chicagoboyz-20&l=ur2&o=1, David & Charles Newton Abbot, London, 1973.
Paul E. Sigmund, The Overthrow of Allende and the Politics of Chile, 1964-1976 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FOverthrow-Allende-Politics-1964-1976-American%2Fdp%2F0822952874%2Fsr%3D1-1%2Fqid%3D1170611978%3Fie%3DUTF8%26s%3Dbooks&tag=chicagoboyz-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325)http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=chicagoboyz-20&l=ur2&o=1, University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, 1977.

KlÃ©ber

18th March 2010, 18:21

I think that you guys mistake the cautious support for Chavez as some sort of uncritical praise for the man. Far from it. He has to decide now which side of the fence, that he's been sitting on for years, is he going to jump off from.
If a civil war broke out in Venezuela, and they called for international brigades to defend the elected government against treasonous generals, I'd hurry be the first one to sign up. But it's not an abstract question of how much support to give, Chávez isn't an undecided quantity, he's a bourgeois president. We should give total military support against fascism and imperialism, cautious support on reformist initiatives, but not surrender political independence, because Chávez is not going to jump off the fence and change which class he represents. Socialism can only be consciously created by the democratic action of the working class, in political opposition to the bourgeoisie. It may be practical to enter the PSUV temporarily, but political independence from Chávez is essential. The Chinese GMD was considered "progressive" when the Communists entered it, but after membership lists were handed over, those were used to purge thousands of comrades.

Even being in a civil war against reactionaries does not mean you are a proletarian leader. The Second Spanish Republic failed precisely because of the liberal social-democratic shortcomings of its leadership, which was bound to Anglo-French imperialism and therefore too afraid to free Morocco or do the land reforms needed to win over the countryside, and conducted a demoralizing offensive against workers' power behind Republican lines in an attempt to regain international respectability as a bourgeois state (even though the Spanish bourgeoisie had already implacably declared against the Republic). This happened unchecked because the Stalinists, Anarchists and POUM submitted to the Popular Front (there was a tiny Trotskyist party which got wiped out along with the POUM, but it was too small to influence anything). The PCE and CNT/FAI even teamed up with factions of the Republican bourgeoisie to kill each other.

RadioRaheem84

18th March 2010, 18:38

It may be practical to enter the PSUV temporarily, but political independence from Chávez is essential.We know this, comrade. At least I do. I would never think of defending Chavez unless his rhetoric met his practice in certain situations and sometimes he does side with the worker but yes he does listen to his reformer party members who insist on keeping the status quo to limit the civil struggle for power.

I too would be the first to board a ship headed to Venezuela if a civil war broke out to fight for the Republic but yes you're right that the hope rests in the working class, not Chavez.

I think you don't give us or the Venezuelan people enough credit to understand the difference between cautious practical support of Chavez against the stronger right wing opposition and ultimate praise for the obvious social democrat reformer.

Patchd

18th March 2010, 20:24

What revolution radioraheem? I didn't see the bourgeois state toppled, nor have I seen the capitalist class removed. What I have heard though, is Chavez making ridiculous statements, continuing to prop up state governors who support him yet are responsible for the crackdown on striking workers, as well as shooting them on a number of occasions, intimidating non-Chavista workers and maintaining the bourgeois wage system.

" ... an independent left website that supports the Chavez government in an interview with Stalin Perez Borges, a leader of the radical trade-union federation, the CUT, who has joined Chavez's new party, the United Venezuelan Socialist Party (PSUV) : "Well, the president said in the last 'Alo Presidente,' the Venezuelan Socialist Party will not take up the banners of Marxism-Leninism, because this is a dogmatic thesis whose time is past and it does not suit today's reality .... Moreover, in relation to the role of the working class, he said: 'The theses that the working class is the motor force of socialism and revolution are obsolete. ... Work today is different, it is the information and telecommunications industry. Karl Marx could not even dream of these things.'"
"We are committed to constructing a socialist model that is very different from what Karl Marx imagined in the 18th century. Our model is to count on petroleum wealth."Wise words from Chavez, looks like he'll be building so-called 'socialism' on the capital made on their petroleum resources through the exploitation of their workers. Chavez's 'socialism' is akin to Old Labour social democracy here in Britain. Concessions to the working class in defence of capital is no victory for the working class. If you like his anti-USA rhetoric then fine, but it's a little show he puts on to please the populace ... like in Iran; rising nationalism equals a more stable capitalist state.

Also, you talk of Allende, this is the same Allende who refused to arm the workers right? An act which no doubt cost him his life in the second (and successful) coup, this is the same Allende who broke up organic worker organisation, replacing it with government sanctioned workplace organisations ... illusions with social democracy doesn't make you a revolutionary, what are you doing on this board?

RadioRaheem84

18th March 2010, 21:42

RadioRaheem84

18th March 2010, 22:00

illusions with social democracy doesn't make you a revolutionary, what are you doing on this board?

Illusions with social democracy? You dogmatic prick. I never once said that we should harbor illusions about resting all of our revolutionary hopes for Venezuela on a single man. I said that due to the gains the people have received from the Bolivarian Revolution they should optimize them to further the cause of socialism. If Chavez falls on the wrong side of this notion then he can go to hell. What's fostering up is a final test to see whether Chavez will side with the people wanting socialism or with the reformists wishing to maintain an alternative economy next to the old one. As the right wing opposition mounts though, it doesn;t look good for Chavez.

RadioRaheem84

18th March 2010, 23:49

Revolutionary leadership

However, Chavez intervened with his July 22 announcement, which came after a meeting with key ministers and advisors involved in the May 21 socialist transformation workshop.

Chavez said his government was committed to implement the recommendations of the "Plan Socialist Guayana", placing himself clearly on the side of the workers.

He said the workers' proposals, embodied in the plan, would "guide all the new policies and concrete and specific measures that we are beginning to decide in order to consolidate a socialist platform in Guayana".

When a journalist directed her first question to Sanz regarding the plan, Chavez stepped in to respond, by-passing Sanz and handing the microphone over to Giordani, who many revolutionary workers identify as strongly committed to the process of socialist transformation.

Rangel, who had been at the May 21 workshop, was not at the July 22 meeting.

Chavez also appeared to differentiate himself from other sectors within the revolutionary movement, such as those behind the "A Grain of Maize" daily column, whose authors are linked to a political current involving oil minister Rafael Ramirez.

This current has recently been vocal in arguing that socialism simply entails state ownership and central planning from above - with minimum participation from workers.

For Chavez, state-owned companies "that continue to remain within the framework of state capitalism" have to be managed by their workers in order to become "socialist".

The Plan Socialist Guayana is Venezuela's first example of real "democratic planning from below", Chavez added.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/4660

RadioRaheem84

19th March 2010, 00:01

IMT: What are your perspectives for Congress in the coming months?
Katy Jaimes: Look, the Ideological Extraordinary Congress of the PSUV is an historical milestone in our country, is a great opportunity for the left wing to take the reigns of the revolution. As I said earlier, I believe that the historical conditions are given for the construction of socialism and for the revolution to be finally consolidated, but it is essential that the revolutionaries in the party organize and work together. In the questions you asked me I said that I have seen a greater revolutionary ferment within the congress, what happens is that still a lot needs to be done in terms of the organization of the left within the Congress of the PSUV. To a large extent, future developments within the congress depend on whether the left is organized properly. If the left is not organized to struggle for truly revolutionary and socialist statutes, a declaration of principles and a programme, then Congress will developed without a strong battle of ideas and without many surprises. In that case the party's bureaucratic sectors stand to gain and most likely will manage to get basic documents of the party passed which will be mostly reformist ideas. But if the delegates from the rank and file, who really defend people's interests and truly revolutionary ideas are organised around the defense of a declaration of revolutionary socialist principles and a programme, then we can achieve many victories at the Congress and within the party. I can tell you that if things develop in this way, the conference will mark an important milestone in our ten years of Bolivarian Revolution and possibly will leave a positive mark on the course of our revolution. But in order to achieve that we need to struggle, to fight and work hard. Like I said before, the conditions are ripe.

- Katy Jaimes, delegate to the Congress for the Chacao municipality of Miranda State

http://www.handsoffvenezuela.org/venezuela_interview_katy_jaimes_extraordinary_cong ress_psuv.htm

These people aren't dumb and co-opted by the bourgeois state. They're fighting for revolutionary socialism and understand that there are reformist and bureaucratic elements in the party. Why do you disparage them so much?

SocialismOrBarbarism

19th March 2010, 00:54

Do people who think there is a socialist revolution occurring in Venezuela also think that countries like Ghana under Kwame Nkrumah and Guinea under Sekou Toure were actually constructing socialism as well? Radical rhetoric on the part of bourgeois nationalist leaderships is nothing new. Nkrumah for example, after coming to power through rigged elections, declared that Ghana was a workers and farmers state constructing socialism. Similarly people like Toure, Gaddafi, and Rawlings set up "workers comittees." There are countless bourgeois nationalists that presented themselves in a similar manner.

RadioRaheem84

19th March 2010, 00:57

Big difference.

SocialismOrBarbarism

19th March 2010, 01:02

Big difference.

If there are big differences then I'd think you would detail what they are.

RadioRaheem84

19th March 2010, 01:24

KlÃ©ber

19th March 2010, 07:17

There were relative "left" and "right" factions in every bourgeois nationalist regime, the same argument could have been made for any of them. The situation is no more clear than it was in Ghana or Guinea. That doesn't mean "it's all shit" or it's so great that we can forget about class analysis because Chávez will do anything the working class pressures him enough to do. It's definitely a promising political situation, but we should aspire to something greater than being the left advisors to a bourgeois nationalist leader. The working class has do be prepared for the independent seizure of power. Sun Yat-sen "contributed to the growth of struggle" in China, so did his great general, Chiang Kai-shek who led the Northern Expedition against the imperialist backed warlords, Sun was a "progressive" figure who had right and left advisors pulling him different ways.. but he was still bourgeois. Total subservience to his party by Communists was a huge blunder.

robbo203

19th March 2010, 09:53

If you cannot see them off hand then there will probably be no convincing your otherwise. I mean the situation is pretty clear in Venezuela. I mean regardless of whatever Chavez's rhetoric is, there is a significant pro-revolution seeking social change. Chavez has sided with them sometimes and sometimes the reformers. Either way, Chavez has proven that he isn't just another tin pot social reformer. He has contributed to the growth of the socialist struggle in Venezuela.

I mean how do you guys gather that it's all shit down there?

Perhaps you might care to explain what exactly this "socialist stuggle" in Venezuela consists in and how exactly Chavez has contributed to it. I see no evidence of widespread socialist struggle but plenty of evidence of social democratic reformist delusions dressed up as the struggle for "socialism"

Patchd

19th March 2010, 15:13

The Bolivarian Revolution in which Chavez instigated as agent of social change for the country vs the one that the public believed would be taken all the way to socialism. All you're describing is what many latin american populist social democrats in the past have stated. That doesn't mean that the movement cannot be followed up by the people, with or without his help. I believe that wherever it is practical for the working class to support Chavez they should but whenever its not to go against him. The progressive reforms are popular though and have benefited the lower class. The voice Chavez has given them is also important too.

Latin American populist social democrats like Chavez you mean? But yes, I agree, what is happening in Venezuela could open up further working class struggle against capitalism and the state, but to do so, the workers will have to do exactly the opposite to what you've suggested, and that is to work against the bosses and their state, which is currently headed by Chavez.

Workers have been opposing the state in Venezuela since Chavez took office, admittedly the workers' opposition movement was smaller at the beginning of this 'Bolivarian revolution', but as we in our Western states see the effects of capitalism in economic decline, so do the Venezuelans, gradually realising that Chavez has not, and cannot rid them of the poverty of capitalism. He is afterall maintaining the bourgeois state which imposes consumption restrictions, the wage system, and the oppressive apparatus used to oppress the working class, that is undeniable, unless you can show me how Venezuela is socialist.

But you're making it seem like he is a dictatorial person bent on crushing the revolution for the sake of maintaining the status quo. I can see why you think this to an extent but can also see where you're wrong. From his point of view, socialism for the 21st century is basically social democracy with a bit more reforms, this is not what I am defending, nor think the workers should be defending. They should be defending those rights they've gained because of Chavez from the right that wishes to rescind them and they should also fight to push the revolution to go further with or without Chavez. Their fight is with the right and the reformists within Chavez's camp. If Chavez has made his mind up and sided with the reformers than he can fall into their camp while we'll support the workers.

No, not dictatorial, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, Bush and Obama, were all not dictators, yet they still managed to (and did) keep the level of workers' militancy low, and the workers subdued, thus crushing any revolutionary desire in large sections of the working class. Chavez is no dictator, although it seems with his attempt at legislative reform and the referendum to extend his powers, he is attempting to consolidate more authority for himself and the section of the capitalist class (and their allies) that support him.

So, am I saying he is crushing any revolutionary spirit in order to maintain the status quo? Yes, very much so, just like any other bourgeois politician, just like Allende and all the other 'Bolivarian' leaders in Latin America. Offer concessions, and keep the class quiet. Is he a dictator? No.

When you enter the oppressive state apparatus, your material conditions change, you are no longer a 'worker', your interests lie in defending the capitalist class and their violent institutions first and foremost, because that is what is securing you a living.

There is big difference though in that Chavez is taking huge hits for pushing forward with some measures that are deemed even more reformist than what most social democrats would want. Even if Chavez is a social democrat, it's surely more socialistic in scope than Old Labour and Social Democrats in power today. I think you're totally misrepresenting the issue. I still stand by my inital comments that people like you are misrepresenting the situation in Venezuela to maintain a seriously dogmatic and erroneous line. You guys act like the revolution is defined by Chavez and ends with him.
How? Old Labour managed to introduce a functioning state healthcare system which guaranteed free healthcare at the point of entry to every 'citizen' in the country, they nationalised many major industries, centralised the banking system, to an extent, worked with and maintain militancy in the union aristocracy and undoubtedly the working class made gains in this time, we saw though how Old Labour began to become more and more reformist, and this was way before Blair's time, when they were already using union bureaucrats to report on upcoming actions and goings on in the trade union rank and file in the 70s, cutting wages of workers and so forth. We will see something similar with Chavez's 'Bolivarianism'.

The revolution is not defined by Chavez, but to have any illusions in him will work against your desire for real working class revolution in the region. This is the same person who sides unwittingly with downright obvious reactionaries like Ahmadinejad, who even the IMF praises for being able to maintain a low state of worker opposition to the economic system in Iran, one which denies majority of workers the right to permanent contracts, union autonomy and the right to organise, upholds reactionary legislation against LGBTQ people, women, and certain ethnic and religious groups and is responsible for the murder of so many communists, and student and labour activists. Venezuela is no revolutionary state, there can be no revolutionary state, there can only be a revolutionary class.

RadioRaheem84

19th March 2010, 17:43

Where to start? OK well I guess, with the first post. I just want to say though that the analysis of the Venezuelan situation that you guys paint is extremely bad, I mean Chiang Kai Shek? Old Labour? A bit much don't ya think?

Anyways:

There were relative "left" and "right" factions in every bourgeois nationalist regime, the same argument could have been made for any of them. The situation is no more clear than it was in Ghana or Guinea. That doesn't mean "it's all shit" or it's so great that we can forget about class analysis because Chávez will do anything the working class pressures him enough to do. It's definitely a promising political situation, but we should aspire to something greater than being the left advisors to a bourgeois nationalist leader. The working class has do be prepared for the independent seizure of power. Sun Yat-sen "contributed to the growth of struggle" in China, so did his great general, Chiang Kai-shek who led the Northern Expedition against the imperialist backed warlords, Sun was a "progressive" figure who had right and left advisors pulling him different ways.. but he was still bourgeois. Total subservience to his party by Communists was a huge blunder.Chiang Kai Shek's nationalist Kuomintang was a bit different from Chave'z PSUV. The "left" and "right" factions that you mentioned is a bit insulting to the many workers within the movement that are actually seeking socialist change and constitute the base of the party. When workers talk about the Bolivarian Revolution, they talk about it as it's separate from Chavez and talk about the elements that hinder it from becoming socialist.

This is in particular the case with oil workers and public employees, but also with sectors of the poor population which are continuing to fight to obtain decent housing and better social services. All of them, however, are increasingly concerned by the growing weight of the state bureaucracy, which is securing and increasing its power and its privileges. On his part, Chávez has announced new projects which have irritated the bourgeoisie, but at the same time he maintains links with sectors of it, while affirming that the Unified Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) is not a Marxist party and that the working class is not the motor force of the revolution, thus weakening a left option. All this effervescence will be refracted in the mass organizations and in the PSUV, where our class-struggle current defends its positions while working with the grass-roots militants and clashing with those who want to confiscate its process of organization and its democratic character.
- Stalin Perez Borges, Trotskyist Union Leader
http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article1428

Pay close attention Patchd, as yours is the worst analysis I have ever read about the situation. The workers are not dumb, they know what is going on and ready to move pass Chavez if they must, but they're willing to support his positions that benefit the working class so they themselves they can optimize the road to socialism.

Stalin Pérez Borges: Scarcely a few months ago, the president reaffirmed that his government was a “workers’” government. He also nationalized the iron and steel company SIDOR , although he did it by repurchasing it, whereas, in our opinion, it is this multinational which should have paid the Venezuelan state for non-respect of its laws and for punishable acts against the country. [I]Despite everything, we cannot deny that it was a very progressive measure, asked for, demanded and conquered by the struggle of the workers. This reaffirmation of the definition of a “workers’ government”, as well as the dismissal of one of the most anti-working class Ministers of Labour that you can imagine, were steps in the right direction: in the direction of measures that we have been demanding since December 2 (the date of the defeat of the referendum on the constitutional reform).http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article1505

Perhaps you might care to explain what exactly this "socialist stuggle" in Venezuela consists in and how exactly Chavez has contributed to it. I see no evidence of widespread socialist struggle but plenty of evidence of social democratic reformist delusions dressed up as the struggle for "socialism" You don't find it the least bit insulting that you just mocked the working class's struggle in the Bolivarian Revolution, which I may add, they view as a continuing revolution? The socialist struggle is at the bottom, trying to get the top, to go all the way when they're being stifled by bureaucracy and reformists wishing to end the revolutionary road. It includes the vast majority of the members of the PSUV base and party members vs. the reformists, new oligarchs and the State. The workers have supported Chavez only in so far as his rhetoric has met his practice but opposed him on the measures that they knew would only set the revolution back. Yet, of course to you and your comrades, there is and never was a revolution and their struggle was all in vain because it didn't meet up to your dogmatic standards.

Latin American populist social democrats like Chavez you mean? But yes, I agree, what is happening in Venezuela could open up further working class struggle against capitalism and the state, but to do so, the workers will have to do exactly the opposite to what you've suggested, and that is to work against the bosses and their state, which is currently headed by Chavez.That's what they're doing and that what I have been saying that they've been doing all along. I really think you and your posse need to actually read posts carefully instead of jumping the gun and thinking that any critical analysis of anti-Chavez rhetoric is automatic praise for the man.

Workers have been opposing the state in Venezuela since Chavez took office, admittedly the workers' opposition movement was smaller at the beginning of this 'Bolivarian revolution', but as we in our Western states see the effects of capitalism in economic decline, so do the Venezuelans, gradually realising that Chavez has not, and cannot rid them of the poverty of capitalism. He is afterall maintaining the bourgeois state which imposes consumption restrictions, the wage system, and the oppressive apparatus used to oppress the working class, that is undeniable, unless you can show me how Venezuela is socialist.No one said Venezuela is socialist. I have never said that. In fact I have consistently said that the most Chavez is doing is creating an alternative economy right next to the old one. I have always said that Venezuela remains largely capitalist and still in the hands of major interests. Who are you arguing with? I swear it's as if you gloss over my posts and assume that I am a crazed Chavista.

Secondly, workers realize the gains that they have made since the start of the revolution but are slowly realizing that their idea of socialism is different from Chavez's Socialism for he 21st Century and are thus opposing many of the reformist and bureaucratic measures from higher ups in the Party. But the base and the lower members of the Party are still active in opposing any measure than hinder the road to socialism.

No, not dictatorial, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, Bush and Obama, were all not dictators, yet they still managed to (and did) keep the level of workers' militancy low, and the workers subdued, thus crushing any revolutionary desire in large sections of the working class. Chavez is no dictator, although it seems with his attempt at legislative reform and the referendum to extend his powers, he is attempting to consolidate more authority for himself and the section of the capitalist class (and their allies) that support him.First he was like Nationalist Chiang Kai Shek, a caudillo, then Old Labor, now he's like New Labor Brown and Blair, Obama and then sprinkle a little Bush. Make up your minds people.

The man is juggling several competing interests that have filled the vacuum since the national bourgeois lost power. There have been concessions to all branches that constitute the PSUV, including the small section of oligarchs which have attached themselves to the party thanks to the no good social democrats within the PSUV. Where he sides the workers, is where the workers support him but where he doesn't is where they oppose him. It's as simple as that and the workers and leftist revolutionary factions within the PSUV have made it quite clear that they're not going to let reformist and bureaucrats take it over. The struggle is clear, it's there, and all I am hearing from you guys is that Chavez is "this or that, so let's call the whole thing off".

When you enter the oppressive state apparatus, your material conditions change, you are no longer a 'worker', your interests lie in defending the capitalist class and their violent institutions first and foremost, because that is what is securing you a living.Wrong on so many levels on the Venezuelan situation. Very dogmatic. No clear analysis, just straight dogma. Look at the situation from the workers perspective, the gains they've made, the ones they've lost, the supporters they have in the Party and the ones that lead the struggle for the revolution to follow a socialist path and you will see that they are the most critical of the state apparatus and the capitalism that is poisoning their struggle. Read their works, not just the works of smaller left opposition movements but the ones that within the PSUV and the workers that support the Bolivarian Revolution.

As revolutionaries, we do not place ourselves on the margin of this struggle, which will decide the political course that the country will follow for months and years to come. We take an active part in each assembly, by presenting our proposals, by listening to the base and by acting in unity with all honest sectors. By converging with those who want an anti-capitalist development and who defend a democratic type of party, without bureaucracy, top-down functioning or a military structure. The revolution needs a party of the base, equipped with a programme to finish with capitalism in Venezuela, a party that the workers, in unity with all the non-exploiting sectors of society, lead in order to be able to decide on their future.
The organizers of the CCURA current and the newspaper Marea Clasista y Socialista are engaged on the road of the deepening of the revolution, of confrontation with imperialism and the bourgeoisie, against all the bureaucratic sectors which are putting brakes on the revolution. We invite all socialists who are engaged in the struggle and all the members of the PSUV to prepare with us with the big struggles that are on the horizon. "Educate yourselves, because we will need all our intelligence, get involved because we will need all our enthusiasm, organize yourselves, because we will need all our strength", said Gramsci. It is in the service of these needs and towards a socialist objective that there has been formed, around the newspaper Marea Clasista y Socialista, a space for participation, for an exchange of opinions and experiences as well as building together, open to all those who want to join it.
I think the main point of contention between us is that you refuse to acknowledge the existence of a revolution in Venezuela. That is your starting point. I think though that the essential feature of any real revolution is the active participation of the masses, which take the road of revolution, seeking a way out of the crisis. This is the decisive feature of the Bolivarian revolution, and one that you and others don't understand.

How? Old Labour managed to introduce a functioning state healthcare system which guaranteed free healthcare at the point of entry to every 'citizen' in the country, they nationalised many major industries, centralised the banking system, to an extent, worked with and maintain militancy in the union aristocracy and undoubtedly the working class made gains in this time, we saw though how Old Labour began to become more and more reformist, and this was way before Blair's time, when they were already using union bureaucrats to report on upcoming actions and goings on in the trade union rank and file in the 70s, cutting wages of workers and so forth. We will see something similar with Chavez's 'Bolivarianism'.First off, Old Labour is not the same as the PSUV. Give them some credit. Did Clement Atlee also arm the peasants, establish communal councils, create workers co-ops? I mean whether you agree that these are good measures or not they are still far more radical than anything Old Labour cooked up. But that isn't the point because there are contradictory measure to the reforms I listed above, the point is that this revolution (which refuse to acknowledge) is being struggled for by people, not Chavez. If they had thought of him and such an evil little reformist bastard, they would've let him rot in jail when the coup happened in 02, instead they mobilized to break him loose.

That sounds a bit like a classic description of a charismatic populist leader. But it is a characterization with which Bruce is not comfortable. Indeed, he comments that many left approaches to the relationship between Chávez and the people are “haunted by the spectre of populism.” Something different is occurring—perhaps captured in Chávez’s well-known statement: “if we want to put an end to poverty, we have to give power to the poor.” Bruce stresses that “we need to try very hard to understand both sides of this combination,” this nexus of centralized policies issuing from Chávez and the “diverse field of initiatives bubbling up from below,” and “we need to try to understand what happens when the two intersect.”
What stands between them and the realization of the goals of the Bolivarian Revolution, their own experiences tell them, are the bureaucrats and the office-holders—the people they have learned not to trust. It is why they listen to Chávez but “not to those around him.”
“When Chávez speaks, we listen. But we don’t listen to those around him.”
- Michael Liebowitz, Exploring the Dialectics of the Bolivarian Revolution, Monthly Review

One of the best analysis of Venezuela, along with the interviews with Stalin Perez Borges I attatched offer a better glimpse of Venezuela than what is touted in here.

The revolution is not defined by Chavez, but to have any illusions in him will work against your desire for real working class revolution in the region.So now you admit there is a revolution? And no one harbored any illusions about the man. The workers are smarter than that. They know to only optimize what they gain from him to take the revolution into their own hands. They don't wait for him or stay attentive to what he can throw at them. They mobilize to get more and further the socialist cause.

This is the same person who sides unwittingly with downright obvious reactionaries like Ahmadinejad, who even the IMF praises for being able to maintain a low state of worker opposition to the economic system in Iran, one which denies majority of workers the right to permanent contracts, union autonomy and the right to organise, upholds reactionary legislation against LGBTQ people, women, and certain ethnic and religious groups and is responsible for the murder of so many communists, and student and labour activists. His support of Iran has always led me to distant any support of Chavez. It also led me to believe he might be a bit kooky.

Venezuela is no revolutionary state, there can be no revolutionary state, there can only be a revolutionary class.As a state no, but based on the majority of the population, yes.

robbo203

19th March 2010, 19:27

You don't find it the least bit insulting that you just mocked the working class's struggle in the Bolivarian Revolution, which I may add, they view as a continuing revolution? The socialist struggle is at the bottom, trying to get the top, to go all the way when they're being stifled by bureaucracy and reformists wishing to end the revolutionary road. It includes the vast majority of the members of the PSUV base and party members vs. the reformists, new oligarchs and the State. The workers have supported Chavez only in so far as his rhetoric has met his practice but opposed him on the measures that they knew would only set the revolution back. Yet, of course to you and your comrades, there is and never was a revolution and their struggle was all in vain because it didn't meet up to your dogmatic standards.

That's what they're doing and that what I have been saying that they've been doing all along. I really think you and your posse need to actually read posts carefully instead of jumping the gun and thinking that any critical analysis of anti-Chavez rhetoric is automatic praise for the man.

No one said Venezuela is socialist. I have never said that. In fact I have consistently said that the most Chavez is doing is creating an alternative economy right next to the old one. I have always said that Venezuela remains largely capitalist and still in the hands of major interests. Who are you arguing with? I swear it's as if you gloss over my posts and assume that I am a crazed Chavista. .

Can you possibly come off your high horse for just one second before you get carried away with your gushing enthusiam for the "Bolivarian revolution" and the answer the question I posed: what exactly is this "socialist struggle" you allege the workers of Venezuela are engaged in? What is it seeking to achieve? And dont just say "socialism". I want to know what you think the workers mean by the "socialism" they are supposedly struggling for?

Is it imposing dogmatic standards to insist that we need to grasp the real dynamic behind any kind of social movement and not simply be swayed by the slogans, however trendy of appealing? I dont think so. Its a question of principle, not dogma. We have seen far too many instances of movements proclaiming to be on track to achieving "socialism" only to find them ending up disappointingly in the cul de sac of state capitalism or social democratic reformism.

I would far sooner not have any illusions about these things than to be disillusioned by the unfolding reality which I suspect is exactly what is going to happen in this case.

RadioRaheem84

19th March 2010, 19:32

Can you possibly come off your high horse for just one second before you get carried away with your gushing enthusiam for the "Bolivarian revolution" and the answer the question I posed: what exactly is this "socialist struggle" you allege the workers of Venezuela are engaged in? What is it seeking to achieve? And dont just say "socialism". I want to know what you think the workers mean by the "socialism" they are supposedly struggling for?

Is it imposing dogmatic standards to insist that we need to grasp the real dynamic behind any kind of social movement and not simply be swayed by the slogans, however trendy of appealing? I dont think so. Its a question of principle, not dogma. We have seen far too many instances of movements proclaiming to be on track to achieving "socialism" only to find them ending up disappointingly in the cul de sac of state capitalism or social democratic reformism.

I would far sooner not have any illusions about these things than to be disillusioned by the unfolding reality which I suspect is exactly what is going to happen in this case.
Wrong Robbo. I posted several instances in which workers, trade unionists, activists, organizers, etc. are seeking specific avenues to see that the revolution is headed on a socialist path and not on a course for bourgeois nationalism. Read the interview with Stalin Perez Borges, Michael Liebowitz's analysis and the other posts of workers and activists in the area dealing with the frustrating situation. There is a struggle there. If you want specifics, read the interview and post some of the specific stuff Borges talks about and you will see what the struggle is all about.

Again, the point of contention is that where you see no revolution at all, I do and I also see the workers struggle to see that the revolution doesn't fall into the hands of reformers and beuracrats.

robbo203

19th March 2010, 19:38

Wrong Robbo. I posted several instances in which workers, trade unionists, activists, organizers, etc. are seeking specific avenues to see that the revolution is headed on a socialist path and not on a course for bourgeois nationalism. Read the interview with Stalin Perez Borges, Michael Liebowitz's analysis and the other posts of workers and activists in the area dealing with the frustrating situation. There is a struggle there. If you want specifics, read the interview and post some of the specific stuff Borges talks about and you will see what the struggle is all about.

Again, the point of contention is that where you see no revolution at all, I do and I also see the workers struggle to see that the revolution doesn't fall into the hands of reformers and beuracrats.

Again, you are evading the simple question I asked you - what is this "socialism" that the workers of Venezuela are struggling for? Why are you so reluctant to answer a straightforward question?

RadioRaheem84

19th March 2010, 19:49

Again, you are evading the simple question I asked you - what is this "socialism" that the workers of Venezuela are struggling for? Why are you so reluctant to answer a straightforward question?

Because I already answered it with the views of socialists on the ground in Venezuela.

Venezuela is starting from a different situation, it has evolved from a classical capitalism towards a perturbation and a destabilization of the market, each reform making the situation more tense. If we do not go further, if behind a socialist discourse we maintain the power of capital over the means of production and a private financial system, then in the long run, instead of breaking with the capitalist model we could come to maintain it, and even reinforce it. The risk is that instead of advancing towards something new, we repeat the worst faults of one of the most perverse models of false socialism of the 20th century.

A process of organization at the base is continuing to develop on a whole series of terrains. At the trade-union, peasant, popular, indigenous levels, within the committees for land, housing or water, in the alternative media, everywhere the participation of the masses is being maintained. It is this motor force of the revolution that it is necessary to consolidate and develop. And if some people want to eliminate autonomy and criticism, we need to avoid that by unifying the struggle against any authoritarian tendencies within the process.

Within the trade-union movement, this reality is expressed by the development of CCURA, [12 (http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article1428#nb12)] which remains our first priority of work. Today more than ever, within the framework of the agreements reached with other currents to defend the UNT and to advance in the process of internal elections, it is necessary to preserve its structure and its functioning. Within CCURA, beyond the fact that a big sector of it has registered with the PSUV and that another sector did not do that, [13 (http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article1428#nb13)] what must take precedence is unity and independence from the state and from parties, by allowing the free development of all political experiences within the framework of the revolution and the need for deepening the revolution.

There are a certain number of important struggles, in which the organizations at the base are in the front rank, and which deserve all our support. In the oil sector, CCURA is clashing with the plans of the Ministry of Labour and of the Bolivarian Workers’ Trade Union Force (FSBT), which wants to consolidate its power with the state bureaucracy and puts forward collective bargaining agreements without the participation of the workers, while treating their opinions with contempt. The same thing is happening with public employees, and they have a similar project for the transport sector. Other fights are being conducted by the fishermen and the community of the port of Guiria, who remain organized, by the Wayuú indigenous people who refuse the installation of a gas pipeline on their ancestral grounds, by the communities which are fighting for decent housing and by the peasants who are calling for their demands to be taken into account more quickly. Far from accepting the new theory according to which there is no need to fight for demands because we are going towards socialism, we are engaged in supporting and developing these struggles. The immediate needs of the workers and the people constitute a right, which must be all the more respected if we are going towards socialism.

Within the framework of this process of organization at the base, the communal councils continue to develop, but not without contradictions. The best example is undoubtedly provided by Carora, where 100 per cent of the communal budget is discussed and decided by the councils, on the basis of the needs that they have evaluated. This is the path which should be followed all over the country. The question of the formation of workers’ councils is under debate in the workers’ movement. Unfortunately, certain sectors of the state and the trade-union movement (FSBT) are aiming at a controlled and anti-trade union model. That does not prevent class-struggle militants from proposing their own model of workers’ councils: democratic, unitary and acting in common with the democratic and legitimate trade-union organizations, towards workers’ power in industry. The debate about the councils, whether they be communal, workers’ or student, must be conducted and decided by the base. And so that they do not lose their capacity for initiative, as well as their right to put forward needs and to impel the struggles of those who form the base of the revolution, it is necessary to act in such a way that they are protected from projects aiming to tie them to decisions of the state and the civil servants who deal with them.

PSUV - perspectives and challenges
The PSUV is at present holding its first assemblies at the base, in preparation for its first congress. We have seen, over recent months, the desperate attempts at sectors of the government to control the whole process. But at the same time, there is the strength and the aspirations of the base, which has begun to take over many assemblies of the socialist battalions. [14 (http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article1428#nb14)] There is no doubt that a serious confrontation is approaching. As the newspaper Las Verdades de Miguel wrote, "a railway collision will happen in the PSUV, between the Right and the Left of the process".

As revolutionaries, we do not place ourselves on the margin of this struggle, which will decide the political course that the country will follow for months and years to come. We take an active part in each assembly, by presenting our proposals, by listening to the base and by acting in unity with all honest sectors. By converging with those who want an anti-capitalist development and who defend a democratic type of party, without bureaucracy, top-down functioning or a military structure. The revolution needs a party of the base, equipped with a programme to finish with capitalism in Venezuela, a party that the workers, in unity with all the non-exploiting sectors of society, lead in order to be able to decide on their future.

http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article1428

robbo203

19th March 2010, 20:23

Because I already answered it with the views of socialists on the ground in Venezuela.

No you havent. I searched among the quotes you supplied for some inkling of what the authors might have meant by "socialism" but found nothing of substance. True, there are a few anti-capitalist noises but anti-capitalism per se does not denote a socialist perspective.

Additionally, you refer to these quotes as the "views of socialists on the ground in Venezuela". But how representative are they of the working class as a whole who you claim is struggling for "socialism"?

RadioRaheem84

19th March 2010, 20:32

robbo203

19th March 2010, 20:50

Oh man, then you and I have totally different views of revolution and workers struggle for socialism.

Then what are these people, who aren't at least even a small represenative of the working class, doing then? I mean are they wasting their time? What are they doing struggling against the state technocrats and the right wing then?

I have to say though, that you place too much emphasis of the revolution on Chavez and not on the workers struggling against the corruption.

So you can't really answer my question, can you? What do the workers struggling for "socialism" in Venezuela mean by that? "Struggling against the corruption" is not the same as struggling for socialism

All I wanted was a straight answer from you but you insist on wriggling out of it. Oh well!

RadioRaheem84

19th March 2010, 20:54

Nolan

19th March 2010, 21:30

What kind of answer do you want from me that I already didn't give you? The communal councils operating at 100% ground level, deciding on the budget themselves. The union organizing, the push for more drastic socialist reforms and pushing back the bureaucratic tendencies in the upper management of the PSUVA. Their fight with management in the nationalized industries, for total workers control. God, I would kill to have these "non-socialist" workers unions here in the States that you so disparage.

What do you want?! What is your definition of a socialist struggle? Where is that happening in the world that is minus in Venezuela among the working class?

Don't feed the troll, Radioraheem. You answered well.

Yeah, the communal councils are a pure embodiment of working class power in Venezuela. I don't see why the anti-chavistas here think it's all about Chavez. Chavez is just the face on the movement. If something were to happen to Chavez, there is no reason the revolution couldn't go on.

robbo203

20th March 2010, 09:01

What kind of answer do you want from me that I already didn't give you? The communal councils operating at 100% ground level, deciding on the budget themselves. The union organizing, the push for more drastic socialist reforms and pushing back the bureaucratic tendencies in the upper management of the PSUVA. Their fight with management in the nationalized industries, for total workers control. God, I would kill to have these "non-socialist" workers unions here in the States that you so disparage.

What do you want?! What is your definition of a socialist struggle? Where is that happening in the world that is minus in Venezuela among the working class?

OK that clears it up then. These are basically reformist organisations that you are talking about insofar as they seek reforms by your own admission, not revolutionary socialist organisations. You are also too quick to condemn. Im not necessarily taking a disparaging approach. Insofar as they are militant unions struggling against the boss class in the nationalised industries and elsewhere then good luck to them. But that does not make them revolutionary socialist no matter how militant they may be Socialist struggle by definition has to be guided by a conception of socialism as its objective. I asked you what conception these workers in Venezuela had of socialism. You refused to give an answer. That speaks volumes I think

Zanthorus

20th March 2010, 13:14

I'll admit to being in a position of ignorance on the situation in Venezuela. I'll probably go through some of the stuff radioraheem posted in a bit.

I think if there is revolutionary zeal among the workers of Venezuela then sooner or later they will have to break from Chavez and the Venezuelan state and act independently. However radioraheem doesn't seem to be denying this.

Apparently anarchists are being "dogmatic" and are universally unable to analyse the situation. This is not true, libcom is not the be all and end all of anarchist analysis. There are some individuals who support the events in venezuela, for example there is this essay from RAAN:

http://www.redanarchist.org/texts/indy/bolivanarchism.html

Robbo203 asks a very important question I think:

What exactly is this "socialist struggle" you allege the workers of Venezuela are engaged in? What is it seeking to achieve? And dont just say "socialism". I want to know what you think the workers mean by the "socialism" they are supposedly struggling for?

If the socialism that the venezuelans are struggling for doesn't represent a complete break from the logic of capitalism, if capitalist markets and the law of value still exist (even if this capitalist distribution is "self-managed"), then although it might be in some sense socialism it is not a socialism capable of making the necessary break from the old society. Chavez's moves towards workers self-management and the arising of an "alternative economy" means little if this economy doesn't eventually challenge capitalism and the law of value as a whole. Even the british Tory party supports co-operative management now (Note: This should not be taken as me comparing chavez and the PSUV with Cameron and his cronies. I'm trying to show that self-management in and of itself is not progressive).

This shouldn't be taken as wholesale dismissal of events in venezuela, simply a statement of the unfortunate facts.

RadioRaheem84

20th March 2010, 15:49

Zan, you make excellent points. Now the unionists and activists that I posted aren't just fighting for social reforms but are genuinely anti-capitalist and are pushing for the revolution to stay on a socialist path. The problem is that robbo203 refuses to acknowledge that workers in Venezuela see this as a revolution. They see the reforms that have been made as little stages until they press on against the capitalist state, they don't see these as ultimate gains, but temporal gains for the working class.

I think if there is revolutionary zeal among the workers of Venezuela then sooner or later they will have to break from Chavez and the Venezuelan state and act independently. However radioraheem doesn't seem to be denying this.
This is inevitible and I think the workers are realizing this now.

If the socialism that the venezuelans are struggling for doesn't represent a complete break from the logic of capitalism, if capitalist markets and the law of value still exist (even if this capitalist distribution is "self-managed"), then although it might be in some sense socialism it is not a socialism capable of making the necessary break from the old society. Chavez's moves towards workers self-management and the arising of an "alternative economy" means little if this economy doesn't eventually challenge capitalism and the law of value as a whole. Even the british Tory party supports co-operative management now (Note: This should not be taken as me comparing chavez and the PSUV with Cameron and his cronies. I'm trying to show that self-management in and of itself is not progressive).The alternative economy that Chavez helped create gave the workers a chance to self organize and optomize worker control in a lot of areas. But in other areas the stiffling beuracracy and right wing machine has kept the alternative economy from flourishing and what we are left with is to opposing camps, side by side, ready for confrontation.

I have clearly shown that the unionists, the base of the PSUV, and the working class wants to the break from the old society and want full fledged socialism and struggling hard against the reformists to get it.

These are basically reformist organisations that you are talking about insofar as they seek reforms by your own admission, not revolutionary socialist organisations.They see their revolution as a gradual approach to socialism but realize that a full fledged confrontation may come with the old society. Their objective is socialism. How can you not see it?

I asked you what conception these workers in Venezuela had of socialism. You refused to give an answer. That speaks volumes I think

When Chávez speaks about socialism and about finishing with capitalism, he attracts all the sympathy of the majority of the population. When he speaks against the working class and Marxism, he gives rise to doubts and divergences in sectors of the revolutionary process. When Chávez calls on people to organise from the bottom up in the PSUV, he generates hopes. When he publicly supports Diosdado Cabello - the principal spokesperson of the Bolivarian Right – he disorientates and weakens the most consistent sectors of the revolution. We have defended Chávez against every imperialist attack, and we will continue to do so insofar as he maintains his political independence in the face of the empire. But if we want to go forward, or if, as he says, we are at a moment of transition towards a supposedly socialist national model, that means that, to quote the words of Simón Rodríguez, [6 (http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article1428#nb6)] "a political revolution forcibly demands an economic revolution". This economic revolution should manifest itself in concrete measures, but such measures have still not been taken.- Stalin Perez Borges

Barry Lyndon

20th March 2010, 16:47

Raheem has, over and over again, tried to patiently show that the Bolivarian Revolution is a complex process, but that in spite of all the contradictory, reformist and even reactionary elements in the PSUV, there is a genuine revolutionary force coming from below that is aiming to completely topple the capitalist state and replace it with workers control.

The ultra-lefts cannot seem to process this at all. To them, one "anarchist" who supposedly "lives in Venezuela"(so do the fascists in the Venezuelan 'opposition') writing for lib.com is more of an authority than VenezuelaAnalysis, which is run by journalists and trade unionists actually living and working in Venezuela. They can only obsessively focus on Chavez and his personal foibles and the silly things he says from time to time. Or they make themselves feel really high and mighty by using terms like 'social-democrat', 'petty-bourgeois', 'reformist', 'left nationalist' to denigrate what people are struggling and in certian cases have died for in Venezuela. It's interesting that the condition that these leftists always make for a true socialist revolution is workers control, but when confronted with evidence that that is actually being constructed, they dismiss it as inadequate or simply ignore the evidence and continue with their ultra-left talking points. I mean, who needs a capitalist media regurgitating lies about Venezuela for profit when you have leftists who will do it for free?

Really, if all Chavez wanted to do was preserve the capitalist state and poses no overall threat to the system, why was their a major imperialist-backed coup de tat launched against him? Why have their been multiple CIA-sponsored assassination attempts against him? Why is American imperialism attempting to encircle Venezuela with military bases in Colombia? It doesn't matter if the Bolivarian Revolution isn't socialist enough for purist leftists like yourself. What matters is that, by all the observable evidence it is far TOO socialist for the centers of capitalist oligarchy in Washington DC and Wall Street. I mean, entrenched class interests are notorious for not precieving the world the way idealist lefties do.

What this really comes down to is that the anarchists, Left Communists and dogmatic Trotskyists think that if the revolution is not a literal re-enactment of 1917 Russia or 1936 Spain, it is not worth supporting and is 'petty-bourgeois' or some other derogatory label . They are the leftists who will support any revolution except the ones that succeed.

Viva Chavez! Long live the Bolivarian Revolution! Long live the workers councils! Venceremos!

Zanthorus

20th March 2010, 17:02

The alternative economy that Chavez helped create gave the workers a chance to self organize and optomize worker control in a lot of areas. But in other areas the stiffling beuracracy and right wing machine has kept the alternative economy from flourishing and what we are left with is to opposing camps, side by side, ready for confrontation.

Hopefully your analysis of venezuela is correct.

One concern I do have though, not necessarily related to the movement itself, is venezuela's isolation in all this. There is a possibility that we could see a socialist revolution followed very quickly by it's defeat under the jackboot of imperialism unless the revolution begins to spread outwards from Venezuela into other latin-american countries.

If revolution occurs in venezuela what do you think is the likelihood of it giving impetus to workers movements in other latin-american countries?

Really, if all Chavez wanted to do was preserve the capitalist state and poses no overall threat to the system, why was their a major imperialist-backed coup de tat launched against him? Why have their been multiple CIA-sponsored assassination attempts against him? Why is American imperialism attempting to encircle Venezuela with military bases in Colombia?

None of this is evidence that Chavez and the current regime in the Venezuelan state is socialist. Socialism isn't the only force that goes against the interests of the ruling-class. The bourgeoisie have nearly as many factions as the left and they can and do infight with each other.

robbo203

20th March 2010, 17:19

Zanthorus

20th March 2010, 17:27

But again and again and again Ive asked you the same question and still you give no answer - what is the "socialism" that the workers envisage at the end of the "socialist path" you say they are pushing to stay on. Why cant you give me a straightforward answer? Why cant you tell me in plains words what these workers in Venezuela want when they say they want "socialism". Is this really too much to ask? Or is it because you really dont know yourself?

I actually have to question how important what they envisage socialism as being is.

The question is not what goal is envisaged for the time being by this or that member of the proletariat, or even by the proletariat as a whole. The question is what is the proletariat and what course of action will it be forced historically to take in conformity with its own nature.

...the many individual wills active in history for the most part produce results quite other than those intended – often quite the opposite; their motives, therefore, in relation to the total result are likewise of only secondary importance.

Even if they have the "wrong" conception of socialism they can still be driven by circumstances to realise "true" socialism.

You've pointed out a good reason to criticise the Venezuelan movement but not necessarily to dismiss it as not socialist.

robbo203

20th March 2010, 19:41

Even if they have the "wrong" conception of socialism they can still be driven by circumstances to realise "true" socialism.

You've pointed out a good reason to criticise the Venezuelan movement but not necessarily to dismiss it as not socialist.

I take your point but in the first instance what I was trying to wring out from Radio, without success, was some idea of what it is that workers in Venezuela understand by the term "socialism" . You and I both know the word can mean different things to different people. Die-hard Tories may regard NuLabour as the embodiment of "socialism". Leninists think that the state capitalist USSR was a "socialist society" en route to communism. Needless to say, I think we would both beg to differ

My point is a simple and straightforward one - you cant have socialism without a majority of workers wanting and understanding it. It cannot be imposed from above by some enlightened vanguard.

It may be that workers may be compelled by circumstances to abandon a "wrong" conception of socialism, as you put it, and to be "driven by circumstances to realise "true" socialism." But Im not too sure about this. One thing is clear and that is that Marx vastly underestimated the capacity, not to say native cunning, of capitalism to coopt and effectively neutralise working class movements. Disenchantment with so called actually existing "socialisms" more often than not tends towards reaction and to reinforce the status quo than lead to a radical opposition to it. It is important therefore for socialists to clearly separate themselves from and disown so much of what is being done in the name of "socialism".

Your quote from Engels is an interesting one. It may be true that "the many individual wills active in history for the most part produce results quite other than those intended" but it does not follow from this that these many individual wills can therefore be disregarded or that socialism is no longer a matter of popular intent or will. After all, Engels also wrote this

Where it is a question of a complete transformation of the social organization, the masses themselves must also be in it, must themselves already have grasped what is at stake, what they are going in for [with body and soul]. The history of the last fifty years has taught us that. But in order that the masses may understand what is to be done, long, persistent work is required, and it is just this work which we are now pursuing, and with a success which drives the enemy to despair
(1895 Introduction to Karl Marx’s The Class Struggles in France 1848 to 1850)

RadioRaheem84

20th March 2010, 19:52

Die-hard Tories may regard NuLabour as the embodiment of "socialism". Leninists think that the state capitalist USSR was a "socialist society" en route to communism. Needless to say, I think we would both beg to differThat is not what is happening in Venezuela in regards to the workers and their conception of socialism in regards to the Bolivarian Revolution.

My point is a simple and straightforward one - you cant have socialism without a majority of workers wanting and understanding it. It cannot be imposed from above by some enlightened vanguard.I have consistently shown that the working class, the unionists and the activists that I have quoted know this very well and only side with Chavez when it is convenient to take his reforms and optimize the road to socialism. I fail to see your point of view and how its valid in regards to this situation.

But Im not too sure about this. One thing is clear and that is that Marx vastly underestimated the capacity, not to say native cunning, of capitalism to coopt and effectively neutralise working class movements. Disenchantment with so called actually existing "socialisms" more often than not tends towards reaction and to reinforce the status quo than lead to a radical opposition to it. It is important therefore for socialists to clearly separate themselves from and disown so much of what is being done in the name of "socialism".There is a huge difference in what Chavez preaches about socialism and what the working class in doing on the ground, taking the reforms and changing them to be more worker controlled.

The working class is wanting to change the whole of society to bring down the old structure. They were angered when Chavez said that the Marxist Leninism doesn't guide this revolution but they know that he does not have the final say in this revolution and the workers are pressing on with or without him.

You seem to keep harping on the top/down structure when I have shown that the working class doesn't see it that way and is mobilizing efforts to transform Venezuelan society from the bottom up.

I don't know what it is you're looking for when I have shown that the base of the PSUV, the working class, the unionists and the activists want total economic as well as socio-political change in Venezuela. They're willing to clash with Chavez's top/bottom structure if they have to.

Just what is it that you're against here?

robbo203

20th March 2010, 20:19

That is not what is happening in Venezuela in regards to the workers and their conception of socialism in regards to the Bolivarian Revolution.

I have consistently shown that the working class, the unionists and the activists that I have quoted know this very well and only side with Chavez when it is convenient to take his reforms and optimize the road to socialism. I fail to see your point of view and how its valid in regards to this situation.

There is a huge difference in what Chavez preaches about socialism and what the working class in doing on the ground, taking the reforms and changing them to be more worker controlled.

The working class is wanting to change the whole of society to bring down the old structure. They were angered when Chavez said that the Marxist Leninism doesn't guide this revolution but they know that he does not have the final say in this revolution and the workers are pressing on with or without him.

You seem to keep harping on the top/down structure when I have shown that the working class doesn't see it that way and is mobilizing efforts to transform Venezuelan society from the bottom up.

I don't know what it is you're looking for when I have shown that the base of the PSUV, the working class, the unionists and the activists want total economic as well as socio-political change in Venezuela. They're willing to clash with Chavez's top/bottom structure if they have to.

Just what is it that you're against here?

Firstly, this is not a question so much of being "against" something here, as Ive explained, before but rather of trying to solicit information from you which for some strange reason you seem particularly coy about giving - namely, what do the workers mean by "socialism". You say you have "shown that the base of the PSUV, the working class, the unionists and the activists want total economic as well as socio-political change in Venezuela" Yes yes yes - but what does this actually mean??? For example, are they talking about transcending the commodity relationship, getting rid of the wages system and so on. Becuase that is what socialists mean by a total economic change. a socialist revolution.

Secondly you make these sweeping statements about what the workers want but I wonder how much of this is wishful thinking. You say the working class is taking steps to change society from the bottom up and therefore rejects Leninist vanguardism. If this is true Im mightily pleased to hear this but is it true or, if it is true, to what extent is it true?

I may be wrong but I get the feeling that you have kind of gleaned your overall impression of events in Venezuela from the cherry-picked comments of a few individuals who call themselves socialists and who may well have a vested interest in exaggerating for dramatic effect

RadioRaheem84

20th March 2010, 20:55

Firstly, this is not a question so much of being "against" something here, as Ive explained, before but rather of trying to solicit information from you which for some strange reason you seem particularly coy about giving - namely, what do the workers mean by "socialism". You say you have "shown that the base of the PSUV, the working class, the unionists and the activists want total economic as well as socio-political change in Venezuela" Yes yes yes - but what does this actually mean??? For example, are they talking about transcending the commodity relationship, getting rid of the wages system and so on. Becuase that is what socialists mean by a total economic change. a socialist revolution.Yes they are. That is what they mean. That is what they want. I thought this was a given in their interviews. They aren't reformists and reject the bureaucratic control of the nationalization schemes, oppose capitalism and the Venezuelan state for coddling it. They want total socio-political and economic change to the old structure and are willing to fight against it and the reformers. What could this possibly mean, then?

Secondly you make these sweeping statements about what the workers want but I wonder how much of this is wishful thinking. You say the working class is taking steps to change society from the bottom up and therefore rejects Leninist vanguardism. If this is true Im mightily pleased to hear this but is it true or, if it is true, to what extent is it true?OK, I've cited PSUV members who represent the base of the party, trade unionists dodging bullets from local police, who strike against the management of the private and nationalized industries, who represent and have contact with nearly all of the unions in the nation who want socialism. I've cited activists, authors who've spoken to the people on the ground. All of them point to one thing; socio-political and economic transformation of the old society from the bottom up and transition to socialism, worker control of the means of production. They're fed up with the bureaucracy of the upper levels of the PSUV, the State and the right wing bourgeoisie.

I may be wrong but I get the feeling that you have kind of gleaned your overall impression of events in Venezuela from the cherry-picked comments of a few individuals who call themselves socialists and who may well have a vested interest in exaggerating for dramatic effect Exaggerating? OK, so what do you believe is going on at the bottom level? I swear, you have no argument here except denial, major denial.

SocialismOrBarbarism

20th March 2010, 21:36

Raheem has, over and over again, tried to patiently show that the Bolivarian Revolution is a complex process, but that in spite of all the contradictory, reformist and even reactionary elements in the PSUV, there is a genuine revolutionary force coming from below that is aiming to completely topple the capitalist state and replace it with workers control.

Yes, he's showed that there are elements that want it to become a revolution. I'm not sure anyone is denying this, but there is a difference between that and there actually being some "Bolivarian Revolution" currently taking place. Chavez is leading no revolution.

Or they make themselves feel really high and mighty by using terms like 'social-democrat', 'petty-bourgeois', 'reformist', 'left nationalist' to denigrate what people are struggling and in certian cases have died for in Venezuela.

I fail to see how that denigrates anyone. Are you really saying that Chavez personally is ultimate embodiment for all of the peoples will for socialism? I mean, I'm sure many people under Cardenas in Mexico legitimately desired socialism, but that doesn't contradict with the fact that they couldn't have done so by simply enacting reforms through the capitalist state.

It's interesting that the condition that these leftists always make for a true socialist revolution is workers control, but when confronted with evidence that that is actually being constructed, they dismiss it as inadequate or simply ignore the evidence and continue with their ultra-left talking points. Why have their been multiple CIA-sponsored assassination attempts against him? Why is American imperialism attempting to encircle Venezuela with military bases in Colombia? It doesn't matter if the Bolivarian Revolution isn't socialist enough for purist leftists like yourself. What matters is that, by all the observable evidence it is far TOO socialist for the centers of capitalist oligarchy in Washington DC and Wall Street.

What evidence? Does the working class hold political power?

Really, if all Chavez wanted to do was preserve the capitalist state and poses no overall threat to the system, why was their a major imperialist-backed coup de tat launched against him? Why have their been multiple CIA-sponsored assassination attempts against him? Why is American imperialism attempting to encircle Venezuela with military bases in Colombia? It doesn't matter if the Bolivarian Revolution isn't socialist enough for purist leftists like yourself. What matters is that, by all the observable evidence it is far TOO socialist for the centers of capitalist oligarchy in Washington DC and Wall Street.

Because it doesn't matter what your goals really are, expropriating foreign property and threatening America's imperialist interests is always going to get you on their bad side. By this logic someone like Mohammad Mosaddegh must have been a socialist.

RadioRaheem84

20th March 2010, 22:21

I think that at the base level there isn't a major difference between the different revolutionary groups except strategy. One doesn't mind taking advantage of the social reforms and making them more worker controlled, while the other fully rejects any involvement with the Chavez administration. The only difference is that the ones that do want to push the Bolivarian Revolution toward a socialist path don't disparage the ultra-left's sincerity in seeking societal change.

But again, like I've said before, the point of contention lies in that there are some in here that deny that there is any revolution at all. Most of this stems from seeing the revolution as simply top/down, instead of boiling from the bottom up. There is no denying that the Bolivarian Revolution was and is extremely popular among the people.

RadioRaheem84

20th March 2010, 22:22

Are you really saying that Chavez personally is ultimate embodiment for all of the peoples will for socialism?

I don't see it this way at all and I don't think that the people I've cited feel that way too.

RadioRaheem84

20th March 2010, 22:29

By this logic someone like Mohammad Mosaddegh must have been a socialist. Well there is a bit of difference between Mossaddegh and Chavez. Mossaddegh never claimed to anything more than a liberal bourgeois reformer and despised socialism. Chavez just has a different (and weird) outlook of what constitutes socialism from his base. I am sure the Tudeh would've loved to have seen even an attempt at workers council, peasant militias, collectives, auto-gestion, co-ops, etc. by Mossaddegh to take advantage of and steer social democratic reforms toward bottom up socialism. Point is that a vast majority of people see this as a revolution and see it stuck in bureaucratic limbo.

SocialismOrBarbarism

20th March 2010, 22:53

But again, like I've said before, the point of contention lies in that there are some in here that deny that there is any revolution at all. Most of this stems from seeing the revolution as simply top/down, instead of boiling from the bottom up. There is no denying that the Bolivarian Revolution was and is extremely popular among the people.

That's because there isn't any revolution at all. Do you think that there was no grassroots pressure on FDR that moved him towards initiating many of the programs he did? Do you deny that he was extremely popular? You seem to think pressure on the top from below is the same thing as control from below.

You keep acting like people are ignoring the militant views and actions of many Venezuelan workers simply because they don't see applying pressure to state for reforms as revolutionary.

RadioRaheem84

20th March 2010, 23:24

You keep acting like people are ignoring the militant views and actions of many Venezuelan workers simply because they don't see applying pressure to state for reforms as revolutionary.

But they aren't looking for reforms.

SocialismOrBarbarism

20th March 2010, 23:51

But they aren't looking for reforms.

It's not as if this reflects the will of the majority of Venezuelan workers, and and even if it did you can't make a revolution by pressuring non-proletarian elements to carry it out for you.

The Vegan Marxist

21st March 2010, 04:40

That's because there isn't any revolution at all. Do you think that there was no grassroots pressure on FDR that moved him towards initiating many of the programs he did? Do you deny that he was extremely popular? You seem to think pressure on the top from below is the same thing as control from below.

You keep acting like people are ignoring the militant views and actions of many Venezuelan workers simply because they don't see applying pressure to state for reforms as revolutionary.

Please show me these militant workers that aren't part of the U.S. sponsored right-wing elements, who are just a bunch of bourgeois/bourgeoisie groups of people who hate the fact that power is going back to the majority. And what is going on in Venezuela is revolutionary! It may not be militantly revolutionary, but revolutionary, nonetheless.

Nolan

21st March 2010, 05:01

We met a wealthy family from my family's hometown yesterday who fled Venezuela after being robbed by armed (workers?) on a weekly basis. The police are no longer protecting property. They are starting to be expropriated, methinks. Ahh, the first wave of Venezuelan gusanos.

Barry Lyndon

21st March 2010, 05:19

Yeah, I met a Venezuelan who made a similar complaint about crime of the same nature that you described. He was so white and spoke such perfect American English I did not even realize he was Venezuelan until he told me! And this was at a "leftist" meeting. These fuckers slither into everything.
It's interesting that the darker-skinned and of more working-class background the people that you talk to from Latin America are, regardless of their stated political affiliation, the less likely they are to blanketly trash the socialist movements in Latin America. Something the armchair revolutionaries should take note of here. :D

Nolan

21st March 2010, 05:22

Father went on an anti-Chavez rant today. :(

gorillafuck

21st March 2010, 05:23

Something the armchair revolutionaries should take note of here. :D
It's so incredibly fucking annoying when people come onto this site and assume that the only sort of political activity anyone does here is post on revleft.

Patchd

21st March 2010, 11:45

I've had my fair share of debates on Chavez, I've outlined the anti-worker nature of the Venezuelan state (and it's head) in this post here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1620334&postcount=65

Careful, it's a long post. I'll be happy to respond to criticisms of things said in that post here too, because no one else responded to them.

RadioRaheem84

21st March 2010, 17:19

....because no one else responded to them.

I thought I did.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1686533&postcount=103

Dimentio

21st March 2010, 18:20

KlÃ©ber

22nd March 2010, 06:21

I don't really agree that nationalisation is any form of solution. It should be socialisation instead.
Definitely. That is what I meant though I didn't explicitly say socialization. But nationalizations are the most we are probably going to get out of a bourgeois state, so if a revolutionary parliamentary fraction must vote over whether to nationalize x industry, I think we should vote yes (while publicly declaring our preference for socialization and noting how this has just passed control from one set of capitalists to another, etc).

robbo203

22nd March 2010, 08:05

Devrim

22nd March 2010, 09:05

Definitely. That is what I meant though I didn't explicitly say socialization. But nationalizations are the most we are probably going to get out of a bourgeois state, so if a revolutionary parliamentary fraction must vote over whether to nationalize x industry, I think we should vote yes (while publicly declaring our preference for socialization and noting how this has just passed control from one set of capitalists to another, etc).

Ignoring the question of whether revolutionaries should be in parliament or not anyway, what is in anyway good about nationalisation? I have worked in nationalised industries, and I didn't notice them being particularly pro-worker.

Devrim

vyborg

22nd March 2010, 10:27

I agree with RadioRaheem84. Chavez is not a marxist, we all know it. He is empirical. He does 2 good things then 2 bad things. Anyway he is defending the revolutionary process in Venezuela. When someone compares him to Attlee or Blair...is a bit ridicolous. Did the capitalists staged a coup against Attlee or Blair and arrested them? Be realistic...

One of the good thing Chavez did was that he created a mass workers party. This is the only way to push forward the revolution. Of course provided that the Psuv will be armed with a revolutionary programme, with bolshevik methods and a clear leadership.

Dimentio

22nd March 2010, 12:29

Definitely. That is what I meant though I didn't explicitly say socialization. But nationalizations are the most we are probably going to get out of a bourgeois state, so if a revolutionary parliamentary fraction must vote over whether to nationalize x industry, I think we should vote yes (while publicly declaring our preference for socialization and noting how this has just passed control from one set of capitalists to another, etc).

The main problem with nationalisations is the general pyramidal structure of state machinery. When there is a shift in power, which often is inevitable as the pendulum of change favour a movement in the centre, and a new government takes power. Privatisations are so much easier to accomplish than nationalisations, since the people are many but often badly organised, and the bourgeoisie are few but very well-connected due to their greater base of influence.

Dermezel

22nd March 2010, 14:42

If the Unions are arguing this strongly Chavez should use this momentum to expropriate major means of production and link his economy up with Cuba's and China's. They can even establish a post-trade Nation-State economy based on giving each other critical technology as opposed to trading, much like the USSR did with China and Cuba immediately following the revolutions.

Ligeia

22nd March 2010, 15:33

I agree with RadioRaheem84. Chavez is not a marxist, we all know it. He is empirical. He does 2 good things then 2 bad things. Anyway he is defending the revolutionary process in Venezuela.

Well, he declared himself a Marxist this year. (speech (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRcXgaO1mjo&feature=player_embedded)) Then again, before this year (all the other years since 1998), he refused to be called socialist, communist or marxist (but almost gradually changed his views on all of these).
Anyway,...this isn't very important since those are only words.

vyborg

22nd March 2010, 18:41

Well, he declared himself a Marxist this year. (speech (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRcXgaO1mjo&feature=player_embedded)) Then again, before this year (all the other years since 1998), he refused to be called socialist, communist or marxist (but almost gradually changed his views on all of these).
Anyway,...this isn't very important since those are only words.

The fact that Chavez declares himself a Marxist is very important, when he will also act as one....will be even better

Ligeia

22nd March 2010, 20:12

The fact that Chavez declares himself a Marxist is very important, when he will also act as one....will be even better
Hopefully.
It took very long for him to talk about this (marxism and such) and accept it as an aim, by the looks of it. I'm just saying you shouldn't focus on one person for a whole people, that's all.
Of course, knowing that the head of state isn't a capitalist ideologue(or anything like that) does make a difference.

el_chavista

9th April 2010, 01:59

Oh, don't worry. They are some of our good old comrades from the anti-chavista "left oposition" :lol::

Uzcátegui: a former guerrilla now a leader of the ("allied" of the PSUV) PPT ("Fatherland for every one") with two more guys that besides of being politicians are from "PROVEA" Human Right observers too :blink:

These are supported by the Trotskyist Fraction 4th International which tends to ally to whom ever seems to be an anti-chavista leftist:

Infame opportunistic "trade unionist" Orlando Chirino
Another "trade unionist" Galíndez, founder of the "Trotskyst" Topo Obrero ("working mole"), former IMT ally.

This very and same news about the clash between the "left oposition" and the Aragua Police was spreaded "as if" by the FT4ªI , El Libertario and PROVEA web pages.

The fact that the police corps are the same old repressive forces at the service and under the command of an "elected official" shows the importance of its substitution for the armed people (militias).

Yehuda Stern

9th April 2010, 08:34

The line that, as Kleber noted, Chavez is a good king with bad advisers is very common amongst the opportunist leftists who support him. The truth is that the question is who you trust to fight for socialism - populist bourgeois politicians like Chavez, or the working class masses. If you trust the former, you will always support him, even if that means supporting or at least whitewashing his oppression of militant workers.

vyborg

9th April 2010, 08:40

This general idea means anything. Why not be even more abstract and say to the venezuelan long live socialism and that's it?

That's exactly how many trots approached the venezuelan revolution and that's why venezuelan workers laugh at them.

For who is a bit distracted, in Venezuela revolution simply didnt existed without Chavez. No mass workers parties, no mass unions no movements before Chavez. This is the reality, even if in our books doesnt fit.

So every worker in Venezuela is very much aware of the role of Chavez.

As I said Chavez is an empirical guy and zig zags are commons but to call him a "populist bourgeois politicians" is completely meaningless.

Proletarian Ultra

9th April 2010, 23:26

Yawn.

- Chavez nationalizes an aluminum plant at the demand of its employees.
- AFL-CIA company union and NED-funded "human rights group" protest.
- 43 arrested by the state government.
- Said 43 released almost immediately.

ZOMGZ F***ING PETTY BOOJWAH FACISM

Die Neue Zeit

10th April 2010, 01:41

These are supported by the Trotskyist Fraction 4th International which tends to ally to whom ever seems to be an anti-chavista leftist:

[LIST]
Infame opportunistic "trade unionist" Orlando Chirino)

Isn't Chirino just an outright scab, though?

The line that, as Kleber noted, Chavez is a good king with bad advisers is very common amongst the opportunist leftists who support him. The truth is that the question is who you trust to fight for socialism - populist bourgeois politicians like Chavez, or the working class masses. If you trust the former, you will always support him, even if that means supporting or at least whitewashing his oppression of militant workers.

First of all, get your class distinctions straight.

He is a populist petit-bourgeois nationalist, not just some other "bourgeois politician."

Second, Venezuela has a federal and not unitary structure. Some of the "oppression of militant workers" is done at the gubernatorial level, not at the level of "bad advisors." The only "strike" taken care of at the federal level was the so-called "oil strike" of 2003.

vyborg

10th April 2010, 13:38

I dont have any evidence that Chirino is a scab, but if someone have please let me know.

As for Chavez. If we define him a populist bourgeois politic, we are comparing him with, say, Peron, or, concretely now, Putin or Ajhmadinejad (both very friend of him it seems). Well this comparison would be completely superficial. How can someone considering himself a marxist or a socialist try such a parallel?

Proletarian Ultra

10th April 2010, 15:33

I dont have any evidence that Chirino is a scab, but if someone have please let me know.

Well, he's friends with Workers' Liberty in the UK, which is very nearly enough for me. ;)

As for Chavez. If we define him a populist bourgeois politic, we are comparing him with, say, Peron

If more people here were comparing him with Peron it would be a significant step forward.

The assumption seems to be that he's some kind of weak-kneed Scandinavian social democrat. Like Gro Harlem Brundtland in a beret. Honestly.

el_chavista

10th April 2010, 16:06

I dont have any evidence that Chirino is a scab, but if someone have please let me know.

Even the FT4ªI (Trotskyist fraction 4th International) at the end realized who Chirino really was: a rampant opportunist, see Zurdito's thread [I]Chirino at the side of the right (again) (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1436107&postcount=1) here in RevLeft Spanish International forum.

If the weakness of the Venezuelan revolution is the low ideological level of the bolivarian leaders, let alone the traditional trade unionist "leaders".

Die Neue Zeit

10th April 2010, 17:00

That scab will probably howl away at the new International.

Devrim

10th April 2010, 17:39

I dont have any evidence that Chirino is a scab, but if someone have please let me know.

Well, he's friends with Workers' Liberty in the UK, which is very nearly enough for me. ;)

That scab will probably howl away at the new International.

Calling somebody a 'scab' is a very serious insult not to be taken lightly. It means somebody who crossed a picket line, not somebody who has connections to crap leftist groups.

I think it is pretty out of order to call someone a scab unless you know it is true.

Devrim

RadioRaheem84

10th April 2010, 17:52

I can't tell if you are being sarcastic?

Marxist analysis means classifying political forces by their actions and the class interests they represent, not the color of the demagogue's clothing.

Then Chavez is not a populist bourgeois.

KlÃ©ber

10th April 2010, 18:08

Then Chavez is not a populist bourgeois.
His government is very much bourgeois. Of course it is the nationalist government of an oppressed country so that is different from an imperialist government like Russia or the US.. but the differences between Chávez and Ahmadinejad are superficial: both are bourgeois nationalists. The fact that workers' councils exist in his country and he leads a "socialist" party does not make Chávez any more socialist than Kerensky..

The working class does not vicariously enjoy power through the person of Chávez. Left wing rhetoric does not equal workers' control of the means of production. The Venezuelan state still exists to preserve capitalist private property interests.

Social reforms were also undertaken by the AD party under Betancourt and COPEI under Caldera, does this make those two bourgeois presidents into socialists?

Proletarian Ultra

10th April 2010, 20:13

His government is very much bourgeois. Of course it is the nationalist government of an oppressed country so that is different from an imperialist government like Russia or the US..

Under what circumstances is it possible for a revolutionary government in the Third World to not be bourgeois nationalist?

Can you name an example of a third world government that was or is actually socialist?

sotsialist

10th April 2010, 21:10

KlÃ©ber

10th April 2010, 22:08

Under what circumstances is it possible for a revolutionary government in the Third World to not be bourgeois nationalist?
Of course, it's not possible for a single isolated country, embargoed and attacked by imperialism, whose development has been deliberately retarded by imperialist powers, to totally and miraculously abolish capitalist production relations within its own borders, and develop a higher form of production overnight and under fire. Thus, only an international, "permanent revolution" led by the workers guarantees the victory of socialism, whereas the various national socialist experiments have universally been ended by bureaucrats and army officers at the heights of the "socialist" state apparatus who deliberately restored market capitalism to fatten their own pockets. This is why it is necessary for the proletariat to take charge of the national-democratic revolution in the oppressed countries, in opposition to the bourgeoisie (whose interest in state-run industry is fickle and has ulterior, undemocratic motives), and give the revolution a socialist and internationalist character in order for it to spread and be successful.

Can you name an example of a third world government that was or is actually socialist? Socialist production relations have not been developed anywhere. Workers' councils have appeared in various countries, and sometimes exercised a degree of political power; in the USSR they even briefly constituted a state. But socialism, the first stage of communism, was never achieved there - the demands of war production, the backwards and petty-bourgeois character of the economy prevented its realization. The working class was elbowed out of power by a military-bureaucratic caste, which abandoned the international revolution and restored bourgeois rule.

Proletarian Ultra

10th April 2010, 22:38

Of course, it's not possible for a single isolated country, embargoed and attacked by imperialism, whose development has been deliberately retarded by imperialist powers, to totally and miraculously abolish capitalist production relations within its own borders, and develop a higher form of production overnight and under fire.

Well, isn't it of interest that Chavez spends so much effort building alliances and regional blocs of left-wing and/or anti-imperialist governments?

Thus, only an international, "permanent revolution" led by the workers guarantees the victory of socialism, whereas the various national socialist experiments have universally been ended by bureaucrats and army officers at the heights of the "socialist" state apparatus who deliberately restored market capitalism to fatten their own pockets. This is why it is necessary for the proletariat to take charge of the national-democratic revolution in the oppressed countries, in opposition to the bourgeoisie (whose interest in state-run industry is fickle and has ulterior, undemocratic motives), and give the revolution a socialist and internationalist character in order for it to spread and be successful.

Socialist production relations have not been developed anywhere. Workers' councils have appeared in various countries, and sometimes exercised a degree of political power; in the USSR they even briefly constituted a state. But socialism, the first stage of communism, was never achieved there - the demands of war production, the backwards and petty-bourgeois character of the economy prevented its realization. The working class was elbowed out of power by a military-bureaucratic caste, which abandoned the international revolution and restored bourgeois rule.

Thanks, Kleber. That's a reasonable if somewhat depressing position.

But if that's the case...well, sort of what's the point? Really. If we're staking out a position where basically every government is going to be bourgeois until the final cataclysm, isn't it reasonable to take some interest in the gradations of character between said governments? Like for example...

Social reforms were also undertaken by the AD party under Betancourt and COPEI under Caldera, does this make those two bourgeois presidents into socialists?

AD and COPEI used the existing state bureaucracy. Chavez is setting up parallel institutions. And the communal councils for example are funded by the state, but they're formed at the initiative of local citizens. To my mind that's a meaningful difference.

vyborg

11th April 2010, 06:53

Kleber we all agree we need workers control to reach socialism but you are too smart a guy to compare seriously AD and Chavez. Does AD spoke about the need to overthrow capitalism or to establish a mass workers international?

It is useless to compare the same single act of different historical periods. SD parties were all in favour of more state intervention in the 60s. But in the last decades they all privatized when in government. That's another reason why AD is not seriously comparable with Chavez.

Chavez helped the workers of Venezuela to rise. This is the truth and we must thank him for it, something AD never did of course. But we always have to stress you cannot do half a revolution!

the last donut of the night

11th April 2010, 16:22

RadioRaheem84

11th April 2010, 18:18

Just a note I want to make: I'm not sure if I support Chavez or not, so this post isn't about that. I just want to make a small observation. Chavez did not help the workers, because reform isn't handed down to workers. We Marxists should see his rise as part of class struggles, not some act of benevolence. He rose on a workers' movement. Just sayin'.

I think he has acknowledged this though. He helped bring the concerns of the workers to the forefront and gave them political clout but that was it. Chavez is just the global face of the class struggle brewing underneath Venezuelan society.

Chavez is nothing without the people. The workers aren't nothing without Chavez though.

The issue isn't Chavez, and I think that we on revleft should make note of this. The issue is really between leftists who believe this to be a genuine revolution and those who don't.

Die Neue Zeit

11th April 2010, 22:45

Calling somebody a 'scab' is a very serious insult not to be taken lightly. It means somebody who crossed a picket line, not somebody who has connections to crap leftist groups.

I think it is pretty out of order to call someone a scab unless you know it is true.

Devrim

It is a political statement. Just as "union" scabs cross the picket line to the side of employers, political scabs cross the workers line over to the bourgeois opposition.

Besides, Macnair called Kautsky a scab for his behaviour in WWI and afterwards. ;)

Chirino became a scab (not an "ultra-left" as claimed by the Grantites and the likes of Louis Proyect (http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2007/11/29/ultraleft-counter-revolutionaries-in-venezuela/)) when he opposed the Yes campaign in the 2007 referendum, and has now embedded himself with the anti-Bolivarian opposition. I expect even scabbier behaviour from him towards the new International (that is, from tomorrow onwards).

Note to Kleber: please read my earlier post distinguishing between petit-bourgeois and bourgeois nationalists. The latter group doesn't like the package of communal councils, worker coops, peasant militias... and now political communes and suggestions of both communal parliaments and new socialist internationals.

Red Saxon

14th April 2010, 03:49

When you can't criticize the state you have Fascism. :|

Bull to bloody hell about the revolution if you can't speak your mind.

Jacobinist

14th April 2010, 16:24

http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x219/rasmekpeace/NiBushNiChavez.jpg

vyborg

14th April 2010, 16:29

We know this attitude. as Chavez is not a communist (or an anarchist) this is like Bush to us.

This is madness. I guess such a position would be considered as criminal in Venezuela and rightly so.

Jacobinist

14th April 2010, 16:39

We know this attitude. as Chavez is not a communist (or an anarchist) this is like Bush to us.

This is madness. I guess such a position would be considered as criminal in Venezuela and rightly so.

There we go again assuming you know what's on peoples minds.

vyborg

14th April 2010, 16:46

There we go again assuming you know what's on peoples minds.

Only because some millions of them jumped into the PSUV? Call me when your group in Venezuela will have even a fraction of this authority among the workers

Jacobinist

14th April 2010, 17:00

Only because some millions of them jumped into the PSUV? Call me when your group in Venezuela will have even a fraction of this authority among the workers

There we go again with the same worn out argument; 'just show me one fucking trot revoluton....' I for one still support Chavez, because he is still heeding the people, but it's not hard to see what Venezuela has the potential of becoming. But as I've already said, Chavez has my full support, for now.

RadioRaheem84

14th April 2010, 18:11

Why can't people see that a revolution has already taken place and the struggle is now three fold; working class vs. reformers vs. right wing bourgeois/imperialists? Chavez is but a mere representation of the only voice the people have in the bourgeois Venezuelan State. The people can leave him in the dust if they want to but use him as a force to achieve certain aims, as does Chavez use the people to achieve his aims. The situation though can easily deteriorate if Chavez deviates way too much from his principle aims which coincide with the working class in several instances. Chavez knows this and the people know this.

Jacobinist

14th April 2010, 19:35

Chavez is but a mere representation of the only voice the people have in the bourgeois Venezuelan State.

Very bold claim ^

Devrim

14th April 2010, 20:29

It is a political statement. Just as "union" scabs cross the picket line to the side of employers, political scabs cross the workers line over to the bourgeois opposition.

It is not a political statement. It is taking a term that has meaning in the workers' movement and using it as a cheap piece of political abuse.

Devrim

Palingenisis

14th April 2010, 20:41

It is not a political statement. It is taking a term that has meaning in the workers' movement and using it as a cheap piece of political abuse.

Devrim

I dont know enough about the situation over there to really comment properly but I dont trust Chavez, he seems to be representing the patriotic petit-bourgiouse as opposed to the actual working class though he was to cater to the workers to a large degree in his struggle against the compradors and imperialists. Its vitally important in these situations for the working class to assert its political independence.

However given that all class struggle is political to some degree or another I dont think that the use of that term is wrong if one accepts that Chavez represents the working class. If they are actually siding with the Imperialist forces in the country than yes they are scabs.

Devrim

14th April 2010, 21:03

However given that all class struggle is political to some degree or another I dont think that the use of that term is wrong if one accepts that Chavez represents the working class. If they are actually siding with the Imperialist forces in the country than yes they are scabs.

The guy in question is a Trotskyist trade unionist, and one person on here said that his association with a specific UK Trotskyist group was nearly enough to make him a scab.

If people are siding with imperialists they are siding with imperialists. They are not 'scabs' though.

I think it is important to realise that leftist politicians will often accuse workers striking to defend there living conditions of 'siding with imperialism'.

Devrim

Devrim

14th April 2010, 21:05

feeling scared? maybe its you whos a scab.

No, I have been on strike over a dozen times in my life. In one of my jobs, postman, I was often in a position where I was faced with picket lines, and always took my mail back and never crossed them.
Devrim

Palingenisis

14th April 2010, 21:07

The guy in question is a Trotskyist trade unionist, and one person on here said that his association with a specific UK Trotskyist group was nearly enough to make him a scab.

When a member of another Trotskyite group said publically on television that he would be happy to "shop" people who defended a mostly working class crowd from the police in the Poll Tax riots in London was he being a "scab"? Id say yes.

Devrim

14th April 2010, 21:13

When a member of another Trotskyite group said publically on television that he would be happy to "shop" people who defended a mostly working class crowd from the police in the Poll Tax riots in London was he being a "scab"? Id say yes.

Yes, I can see that. I think personally I would use the words 'grass' or 'tout' though. The point is that political positions don't make somebody a scab. Even here, and I think it is not quite the right word, we are talking about an action, not an idea.

Edit: It is also funny how they deny that now with a straight face, even though millions of people, myself included, heard it on TV.

Devrim

Palingenisis

14th April 2010, 21:22

Yes, I can see that. I think personally I would use the words 'grass' or 'tout' though. The point is that political positions don't make somebody a scab. Even here, and I think it is not quite the right word, we are talking about an action, not an idea.

Edit: It is also funny how they deny that now with a straight face, even though millions of people, myself included, heard it on TV.

Devrim

Well Trots will be Trots :)...If they were more honest maybe they would all be Left-Communists.

The point though is that just as in a strike action you can cross a class line and side with enemy so you can do the same in a political struggle. By saying he would grass people who defended themselves against the police he crossed a class line...Maybe technically its wrong, but its a good analogy.

What was the ICC's line on the Poll Tax riots by the way?

syndicat

14th April 2010, 22:52

i thought this El Libertario piece had a number of ambiguous statements. It's a problem I have with a lot of El Libertario stuff. So i've generally been neutral in regard to them.

However, I more recently had an opportunity to interview a member of the El Libertario collective in person. I asked him about the community councils and cooperatives, and what he thought about that. He said that when these were first proposed, the anarchists in Venezuela were excited, thinking "This is something we can work in." But he said that a number of them found that when radical left currents (anarchists, trotskyists etc) become pronounced in a community council, the state with draws the funds.

I've heard from another source that this doesn't happen all the time. So maybe it depends on the particular government officials in particular areas. This behavior would suggest a kind of top-down, clientelist practice...common in the history of Latin American populism.

This El Libertario member I interviewed also told me that at present the anarchists in Venezuela are divided. Many are still critical supporters of the Chavez initiatives.

Another problem is that the Chavez government treats micro-enterprises differently than major enterprises. When the state takes over the latter, they tend to insist on "co-management" which means that government bureaucracy ultimately calls the shots.

Then there is also the problem of government control over the unions. The person I interviewed is working with the radical left oppositionists in the oil workers union. He says that five times they've petitioned for new election of union representatives. And the Chavez government has always turned them down. He says this is because the radical left -- Trotskyists, anarchists, etc -- are strong in the oil workers union. The current leadership is Chavista and is regarded as ineffective by the workers. So the government is afraid they'd be defeated for reelection.

Of course the more fundamental issue is that an authentic worker managed socialism can't be created top down by leaders through a state. It has to be created by a mass working class movement from below. And, as far as I am aware, there does not seem to be yet a strong enough independent radical mass movement.

Die Neue Zeit

15th April 2010, 01:24

I dont know enough about the situation over there to really comment properly but I dont trust Chavez, he seems to be representing the patriotic petit-bourgeoisie

But therein lies a difference already. He himself knows there's no such thing as a "patriotic bourgeoisie."

Its vitally important in these situations for the working class to assert its political independence.

I couldn't agree more. However, being useful idiots for the bourgeois opposition is not the answer.

The guy in question is a Trotskyist trade unionist, and one person on here said that his association with a specific UK Trotskyist group was nearly enough to make him a scab.

Didn't you read my post? I'm not scathing Orlando Chirino for his associations, but for his personal activity starting with the 2007 referendum. His call to spoilage was inappropriate (see, even I know the limits of spoiled ballot campaigns).

bricolage

16th April 2010, 11:18

Devrim

16th April 2010, 11:49

Who said this?

I can't remember who actually said it now. It was either Steve Nally or Tommy Sheridan from the Militant (now split into the CWI and IMT). They said they would "name names" and "root out trouble makers".

The first demonstrations organised by the Fed were the 200,000 strong demonstration in London, parts of which turned into the Poll Tax Riots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_Tax_Riots), and a simultaneous 50,000 strong demonstration in Glasgow on 31 March 1990.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Britain_Anti-Poll_Tax_Federation#cite_note-8). Federation leaders Tommy Sheridan and Steve Nally criticised the participants of the poll tax riot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_tax_riot), and were said to promise to "name names"[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Britain_Anti-Poll_Tax_Federation#cite_note-9) however, Militant claimed that this was "Totally false" and criticised those such as Roy Hattersley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Hattersley) had called for punishment of those involved.[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Britain_Anti-Poll_Tax_Federation#cite_note-10)

Devrim

Die Neue Zeit

16th April 2010, 14:21

What do either of them have to do with Orlando Chirino?

Sentinel

17th April 2010, 17:34

feeling scared? maybe its you whos a scab.

No he isn't, and you are verbally warned for flaming until you prove the contrary.

KlÃ©ber

23rd April 2010, 04:34

Well, isn't it of interest that Chavez spends so much effort building alliances and regional blocs of left-wing and/or anti-imperialist governments?
Of course, that's a step in the right direction, but there were huge blocs of left/nationalist governments before, they fell apart and even had wars with each other:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/Sino-Soviet_split_1980.svg

And there is still the "Socialist" International, another huge bloc of sorts, equally deserving of criticism:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Countries_governed_by_SI_parties.png

But if that's the case...well, sort of what's the point? Really. If we're staking out a position where basically every government is going to be bourgeois until the final cataclysm, isn't it reasonable to take some interest in the gradations of character between said governments? Like for example...Well, there's a difference between a workers' state and a socialist economy. It's possible to set up a workers' government before capitalist relations are abolished. And yes, it is important to note those steps that Chávez is forced to take in the right direction; it would be sectarian not to support the reforms advocated by the PSUV, just like it would be sectarian to oppose the reforms of AD, or nationalization of oil by COPEI, because of the bourgeois character of those parties. Throughout the entire revolutionary process the workers need their own independent voice, party, and military organization, otherwise some reactionary social forces will try to turn back the proletariat's gains.

AD and COPEI used the existing state bureaucracy. Chavez is setting up parallel institutions. And the communal councils for example are funded by the state, but they're formed at the initiative of local citizens. To my mind that's a meaningful difference. Chávez is not so stupid as to set up and fund organizations that the PSUV can't control.

Kleber we all agree we need workers control to reach socialism but you are too smart a guy to compare seriously AD and Chavez. Does AD spoke about the need to overthrow capitalism or to establish a mass workers international?
And I think you are too smart to say that there was no workers' movement before Chávez, he made it all happen and deserves the masses' thanks.

It is useless to compare the same single act of different historical periods. SD parties were all in favour of more state intervention in the 60s. But in the last decades they all privatized when in government. That's another reason why AD is not seriously comparable with Chavez.So the PSUV seems more like an SD party of years ago, that doesn't mean it is outside the bounds of social-reformism. The anomaly is probably best explained by the oil wealth which serves the role that Soviet aid once did for third-world populism: gives nationalist bourgeois enough confidence to support a relatively radical president.

Chavez helped the workers of Venezuela to rise. This is the truth and we must thank him for it, something AD never did of course. But we always have to stress you cannot do half a revolution!We have to also stress that the party of Chávez isn't going to complete the revolution. In certain historical situations the bourgeoisie of an oppressed country can even fully nationalize the economy and declare the victorious construction of "socialism," but even then, the revolutionary tasks won't be completed.

I think we are basically in agreement though, in support of the progressive initiatives of the PSUV, a united front against neoliberalism and in defense of Venezuela against imperialism, and that workers need political independence from all sections of the bourgeoisie, even the most left-leaning bourgeois.