Fifth International: a "tankie" perspective

[Die Neue Zeit]

http://www.focusonsocialism.ca/random.asp?ID=347

The above is a "tankie" perspective, but it is unusual in that it welcomes the Chavez initiative.


Don Currie, Chair Canadians for Peace and Socialism

The proposal last November 2009 to organize a new international having the support of left-socialist revolutionary parties in Latin America, on the initiative of Hugo Chavez, is an important development in the anti-imperialist movement urgently in need of credible communist analysis.

Socialist Project, a quasi-trotskyist group, that also includes some well informed writers, as usual is first out of the blocks with their commentary on this development. Where the term “Fifth International” has come from is not clear. The still born Fourth International was a trotskyist organization that since its inception in 1938 has fractured into a series of smaller groups.

The Communist Party of Canada (CPC) leadership has once again been caught flat footed. To my knowledge the CPC leadership has said nothing publicly about this development. If they have good information about it, in their usual lofty manner, they keep it a secret. Supporters of the CPC as usual are the last to know and left to try and figure out such matters as best we can.

This is not 1914 on the eve of World War One when the opportunist leadership of European mass socialist parties of the Second International betrayed the working class and went over to the support of their respective ruling classes and helped their imperialist masters lead the workers to the slaughter. The Bolsheviks and Leninist core of forces in working class parties condemned the opportunist leadership of the Second International for the betrayal and under the leadership of Lenin on March 19th 1919 formed the Third International popularly known as the Comintern that united all of the Communist Parties of the world under its leadership until dissolution in 1943.

After the Soviet Union had defeated the Nazis in WW2 there followed a series of International Meetings of Communist and Workers Parties usually convened together with CPSU Congresses and its work was published in World Marxist Review as the main theoretical organ of that movement. The Communist Party of Canada played an important role in that work.

Today things are different. The forces coming forward with the proposal for a “Fifth International” are not Communist Parties but are left anti-imperialist revolutionary parties some of which are in power and proclaim socialism as their goal. These movements act in solidarity with socialist Cuba and the Bolivarian revolutions in Venezuela and Bolivia and are not overtly anti-communist. Within this movement there are also some pronounced pseudo leftist meddlers involved in the process in particular the usual claque of trotskyist and anarchist groups who do nothing but spread confusion.

The suggestion by Socialist Project that the proposed “Fifth International” should be modeled on the World Social Forum is an example. It is not only absurd, it is reactionary. Big tent feel good talk fests is not what is required now. The petty bourgeois radicals prefer such loosely organized movements in which they have unrestricted freedom of movement to spread their doctrine of “world revolution”. The proposal by Socialist Project to build socialist unity in Canada on the basis of “unity in diversity among left working class forces” with eco-socialism as a centre piece has been around for some time and continues to be ignored and never discussed or challenged by the leadership of the CPC.

[...]

The IMCWP is beginning to provide answers to the problem of confronting the wrong positions of social democracy and social radicals of all stripes. The (IMCWP) has now completed 11 International meetings to develop a unified line and to re-establish the supremacy of the ideas of Marxism Leninism within the international working class and people’s revolutionary movements. Great progress is being made on re-establishing the fundamentals of Leninism in the era of imperialism in particular how to conduct the struggle for socialism in non-revolutionary situations and unite all of the anti-imperialist forces.

There is no organized structure to the IMCWP movement except through the medium of Solidnet. A more advanced organization structure may be under discussion. Undoubtedly it will emerge at a certain conjuncture of both urgency and need and growing organizational strength. There is no doubt in my mind that it will eventually happen.

The CPC cannot move forward, regardless of all of the omnibus resolutions it produces, all of the hosannas, if there is not a corresponding rise in the level of its theoretical and ideological work and by its independent effort begins to provide for the advanced working class activists of the organized labour, farmer, peace and democratic movements of our country, relevant and timely communist analysis in the realm of the struggle of ideas. We in CPS say without fear, that is not being done adequately and must be addressed and urgently.

[Prairie Fire]

Why would that be unusual?

Tankies love Hugo Chavez. And Evo Morales, Alexander Lukashenko, Robert Mugabe, and often also Saddam Hussien and Slobodan Milosovich.

Now, I'm not necessarilly equating all of those figures, nor am I implying that we should not recognize/uphold the progressive merits of these figures that served their working class.

What I am saying, is that without solid analysis, Tankies will fall for anything (Michael Parenti being the textbook example). Without the scientific analysis of Marxism-Leninism, without class analysis, they will always fall into traps so long as a persyn/organization uses buzzwords like "socialism" and makes use of the proper rhetoric and aesthetics.

Without the analysis of social imperialism, China can still be classified as a "socialist state" (and it is, by many such organizations). Without an analysis of class relations to political power and a thorough examintion of socio-economic organization prevailent in a country, Cuba can still be classified as a "socialist state".

With only the most flimsy rationalizations, Venezuela can be classified as a "socialist state".

Now of course, it is not. Hugo Chavez talks a great deal depending on where he is, and whom he is talking to at any given time, and he has long ago learned how to wave the red flag to drum up international support. That said, he has also made it clear that he has no intentions to abolish private property in land-ownership (although he may do an about-turn on that), there has been no real revolution in Venezuela, and henceforth the bourgeoisie as a class have not been liquidated and still exist with most of their assets intact.

Buisnesses are still largely privately owned, Class divisions persist, and wage labour exploitation is still the economic norm.

At best, Hugo Chavez could be classified as a progressive figure, a left-social democrat or a staunch anti-imperialist figure, as could the PSUV.

However, to those who advocate "socialism via tank brigade", Hugo Chavez is a revolutionary socialist, and the fifth internationale is worthy of such a mantle.


Now, to be fair, even this bunch ( Canadians for Peace and Socialism) recognize that this fifth internationale is not formed of communist organizations (probably the reason that few serious communist parties have even aknowledged the existence of this theatrical stunt), but they don't necessarilly reject it either.

From a brief glance at this organization, they strike me more as being Kruschevites than Tankies, a left off-shoot organization of the Kruschevite Communist party of Canada. That said, Kruschevites,Trotskyists and others often get ensnared by Venezuela as well.

Anyways, all of this said, probably the best stance to take on the fifth international, just like every other intiative in "Bolivarian" Venezuela, is that revolutionaries should defend all progressive gains for the people of Venezuela against both internal and external reaction. That said, if the Venezuelan people don't wish to go through a never ending cycle of electoral re-counts, referendums, military coups, opposition boycotting elections and staging protests, internal and external media smear campaigns, etc, they will at some point have to shed this "I'm okay, you're okay" facade and finish the job in their country once and for all.

[Glenn Beck]

That said, if the Venezuelan people don't wish to go through a never ending cycle of electoral re-counts, referendums, military coups, opposition boycotting elections and staging protests, internal and external media smear campaigns, etc, they will at some point have to shed this "I'm okay, you're okay" facade and finish the job in their country once and for all.

As a brainwashed supporter/useful idiot of Hugo Chavez I wholeheartedly agree with this message.

[Prairie Fire]

Blah. That last response of mine was simplistic dribble.

Here is a better response of mine on this issue, my initial thoughts that I wrote in November when I first heard about the 5th international:


Prairie Fire, Nov.24th, 2009, on Hugo Chavez, the PSUV and the "fifth Internationale":

I would say that Chavez is finding himself in the exact same position as Allende, yes, but not just in narrow ideological terms.

Chavez, and more generally all of Venezuela, is finding themselves in the exact same position as Chile pre 1973. They have a parliamentary "socialist" party elected via bourgeois democracy and bourgeois pluralism, and no matter how much of a strong base of support they have among the people, the fact of the matter remains : there has been no revolution, so not only has the working class not really taken state power, but all of the exploiter elements and reactionary trash in Venezuela have not been swept away.

The class divisions in Venezuelas "socialist" state are intact.

So, in this way, they are finding themselves in the position of Allendes Chile. I explained that to a Comrade last night, that the bourgeoisie doesn't necesarilly give a shit about public opinion. They occassionally utilize street mobs as a tactic (ie. the European "colour revolutions", this recent buisness in Iran, Teabaggers, etc) but when propaganda and the ballot box fails, then military coups happen and elections are suspended.

"I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves." — Henry Kissinger"

As long as the bourgeoisie class exists, and is able to move their pinky finger, they will try and regain and maintain their position of class privilidge at all costs, as demonstrated by Chile 1973, which also demonstrated quite clearly that a parliamentary "socialist" system is always temporary, because as long as both classes continue to exist there will be class struggle.

This has been demonstrated in Nepal as well, where the Maoists walked out of parliament, because (suprise) the bourgeois parties and power structure fought them every step of the way on their reforms.

Same situation in Venezuela, where the local oligarchs have fought them every step of the way. Every election (no matter how landslide it is for Chavez) is a re-count, the bourgeois parties boycott elections (that they know that they can't win) to make a scene on the international stage, they sabotage industries that are being nationalized, they launch inflammatory TV attack ads against Chavez all the time (on the private TV stations, which for some reason they are allowed to own).

And then came the 2002 coup, just like Chile. The only difference is, (the Venezuelan people) managed to over-turn the coup in Venezuela, because the military had no real loyalty to the coup government (perhaps the failure of internal coup de tats is the reason that now threats to Venezula are largely coming from the outside, via the United States and their proxy Columbia. the US now knows that even the Venezulean military is not to be trusted).

So, Venezuela is joined at the hip with the history of Allende's Chile in more ways than one. Two "Socialist" states with elected "socialist" governments, co-existing in vain with the class system and the exploiter class (which wasn't smashed into oblivion, because there was no revolution to speak of), and more and more finding that with every reform, ever nationalization, every strike and every election, they are pushed into direct conflict with the bourgeoisie (which they did not see any reason to get rid of), and this will eventually hit a boiling point.

One side will be victorious, and I don't know if the mass support for Chavez will be enough. If the PSUV government is overthrown, as unfortunate as that is, I think it is a matter of "you made your bed, now sleep in it". The PSUV refused to liquidate the Venezuelan oligarchs, now maybe the may wise up when those oligarchs eventually bite their heel. Again. Like they always do.

Don't misunderstand me; I'm not cheer-leading for Imperialism here, and I'm not "wishing"a military coup/invasion on Venezuela, to "teach Chavez a lesson" about his impotent tactics. I support Venezuelas right to self determination, the right of the Venezuelan people to decide their own affairs and choose their own governing body.

What I am saying is that the polices of the PSUV have basically made the coup/invasion out-come inevitable, and if the PSUV and the people of Venezuela want to come out on top, they will have to make a break with their current tactics and pursue some of the taboos of Soviet Socialism, which the PSUV continues to keep at arms length.

Maybe this foundation of a New international is step in making a decisive break with their old tactics (because the situation is kind of forcing them to).


( Response to Comment from other comrade about Chavez being niether Marxist nor social democrat)

Objectively, Hugo is a social-democrat, no matter what idealist notions he may entertain.

He may be a very Old-school social democrat, but there has been no revolution in Venezuela, so what ever "socialism" they have built there is a shadow of the real thing.

Unlike the teabaggers, we know that social-programs don't equal Socialism. Shit, most European capitalist states, Canada, and even the United States itself are under a Keynesian economic model, with social programs.

Venezuela simply has more social programs, that play a bigger role in the society.

The Venezuelan governments support for most domestic trade union struggles isn't really a manifestation of political power in the hands of the working class. May I remind you that during the New Deal in the United States, the government supported at least one major labour strike (which is portrayed in the ending of the Michael Moore film "Capitalism: a love story").

And as for nationalization, many capitalist governments had programs of nationalization. The Social democrats in my country, when running the province of British Columbia, nationalized a factory. Hell, even the third reich made nationalizations.

The difference is the principle of the thing. Hugo Chavez and the PSUV have publicly stated, despite the occasional nationalization, that they have no intentions of abolishing private property. That, and they allow the bourgeoise in Venezuela to continue to exist, and thrive on the sweat of working Venezuelans.

Whatever Chavez chooses to call himself (this week), he is objectively a social-democrat. Maybe a left social-democrat, but a social-democrat none the less.

If we know that Mao Tse Tung/ the CCP were not socialist, then why the hell would Hugo Chavez/PSUV be? Maoist China made infinitely more progessive advances for the people than Bolivarian Venezuela, although they are both progressive states, and yet we recognize that China never had socialist economic/ socio-political relations.

Hugo Chavez can "talk the talk" against Capitalism, against Imperialism, and calls himself "Socialist". So what?

So do many of the NDP ( New Democratic Party, a Canadian social Democratic party,) social dems in my province, especially the young ones. The young ones, while rejecting Marxism, actually consider the NDP's vision to be a distinct alternative to capitalism. Economically, politically, and socially, it is the exact same socio-politico-economic system, with a few more carrots for the workers (in practice, their party's leadership becomes indistinguishable from the Conservatives and Liberals).

The issue is not what people call themselves, because there are a great many that can "talk the talk". The issue is the actual class relations to political power, the economy, etc.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Your article doesn't cover the new International proper, just the state of things in Venezuela. :confused:

[Prairie Fire]

I haven't commented much on it because there is little to say...

From what I've seen, like some of Chavez's other antics, it seems like a stunt.
Chavez is very good at being whatever he needs to be depending on where he is at particular time. He will cite Noam Chomsky at the UN general assembly, claim to be a Maoist on a visit to China, A Trotskyist on a different occasion, and I'm told that he initially came into power on a platform of privatization.

Even "Bolivarian socialism" itself, espoused by Chavez and the PSUV, is a tragic hybrid of the ideals of Simon Bolivar, Che Guevera and Jesus Christ.

Bolivar was a Land-owning Bourgeois democrat, who according to Ronald Wright in his book Stolen continents, deliberately destroyed indegenous modes of collective property ownership in South America. Not only was Bolivar not a socialist, he was staunchly opposed to land being held in common by the people.

Jesus Christ, even if he was a historical persyn, was not necessarilly a socialist, and certainly not a scientific one.

Even if one wishes to fixate on the account from the book of acts about the first Christians living communally, and the story of Jesus and the Money changers, as well as token populist passages ("It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." (Matthew 19:24) ),
then one still would need to reconcile this with the rest of the bible which goes beyond metaphysics, but specifically condones and legitimizes slavery, patriarchy and other forms of subservience and exploitation which are codefied in the old and new testament.

The point is, even the way that their bullshit contradictory theoretical basis is structured is a clear effort to to say the right names to gather support from the masses, both Venezuelan and international:

Bolivar was a patriotic national hero,

Jesus is a major religious figure in Venezuela and around the world,

Che is a popular revolutionary figure, in the world and especially in Latin America.

Wrap all three of them up in the standard vague rhetoric about "socialism from below", etc etc, and you can mobilize millions of Venezuelans and international supporters to the defense of th PSUV regime.


So, getting back to this "5th international", Which no serious communist party that I see has really approached (even and especially those who support Venezuela in some capacity or another), it seems like everything else that the Venezuelans do. Offering low priced oil to American poor people, training indegenous people in Venezuela to use poison tipped arrows to defend the country in the event of an invasion, Handing Obama a book (as if it will help)... The actions of the Venezuelans are enigmatic at best.

Now, to me this new "5th international" seems tailored to the tastes of the infantile left in imperialist countries. Just the fact that it is the "5th" international rather than the 4th is a recognition of the Trotskyist attempt at an "international", which I think is an obvious sign that he is just playing the numbers. Many of his supporters in imperialist countries are Trotskyists, or at least lean that way. It pays to cater to them, because from what I hear, The US and Columbia are making threatening moves towards Venezuela, so Venezuela will require all the help that it can get.

So, as for the "5th" international... we'll see what fruit it yields, just as those of us in favour of liberation are keeping a constant eye on all the intiatives of Bolivarian Venezuela.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I don't like the numbers game myself, but don't you also see the need for a broad international like the International Workingmen's Association was?

[Dimentio]

Theoretical purity might be necessary internally, but externally... well, if Donald Duck suddenly is viewed as a saviour by the general population, hoist the banners with Donald Duck! :)

[Prairie Fire]

but don't you also see the need for a broad international like the International Workingmen's Association was?


You're asking one of the founders of the HU if I see a need for a workers international organization? ;)

Seriously though, there are several embryonic internationals that have accomplished much more than Chavez's fledgling 5th.

The RIM, for all of their faults, has lead armed struggle in places like Nepal and Peru.
http://rwor.org/s/corim.htm

At this time, many lean more towards the ICMLPO (Unity and Struggle) http://cipoml.com/

I'm just saying, there are existing embryonic internationals at this time, with tangible victories to their name. If Chavez was serious, perhaps it would be better to throw Venezuela's hat into the ring with those forces that are allready struggling, and have been struggling for decades before Venezuela was "Bolivarian".

Instead, Chavez is founding yet another organization (presumably one that Venezuela can control the direction of), and is asking all of those around the world ,who have been struggling for decades, to join his fledgling organization instead of going over to them and aiding them in their struggles. In essence and practice, I think that this will manifest as established forces all over the world being called on to abandon their own struggles and become cheerleaders for Venezuela (as so many have been reduced to allready).

The serious and established organizations know that the only way to help Venezuela, or anywhere else, is revolution in their own country.


Theoretical purity might be necessary internally, but externally... well, if Donald Duck suddenly is viewed as a saviour by the general population, hoist the banners with Donald Duck! http://www.revleft.com/vb/fifth-international-tankie-t131282/revleft/smilies/001_smile.gif

When it comes to viewing historical figures, view them for what they were and nothing more. To go beyond this is opportunism.

In practice, any revolutionary organization worth their salt doesn't need to ride on the prestige and long-dead legacy of historical figures. Actions will make or break your organization in the consciousness of the people.

This may seem a paradox from a Marxist-Leninist, but we do not uphold the founders of Marxism for any other reason than concurrence with their theory and practice. If they had not propogated revolutionary ideals and actions in their lifetime, they would be useless to us.

As Marxist-Leninists we do not exist for the sole purpose of propagating the persynalities of historical figures, and we have disdain for those that do (ie. The Stalin society in Britain).

[Dimentio]

Propagating the personalities of deceased individuals is mostly counter-productive and quite introspective, but to uphold theoretical purity externally is to slag off potential allies and sympathisers. I don't think worn-out workers who would potentially be swayed over by the APL for example care too much about Hoxha. Neither does the SWP attract the British working class by Trotsky.

[Prairie Fire]

Dimentio:


but to uphold theoretical purity externally is to slag off potential allies and sympathisers.


There is a difference between expecting "theoretical purity" of the working masses, and attempting to dissimenate the correct political line among the masses.

Any serious ML paper doesn't attempt to build Rome in a day. Instead, the role of the party is to go to the masses in their struggles, analyze their situation, articulate and popularize solutions, and lead them in the achievment of thier own objectives.

In doing this, naturally, you will find a hodge podge of ideologies among the masses, but this is not the issue.

To give you an example, when the Prime Minister of my country prorouged parliament again this year (just like last year), there were demonstrations and we went out and participated. We handed out a party statement, with the general line that not only gave a brief synopsis of what was going on, and dispelled official mythology (ie. The difference between a parliamentary recess and parliamentary prorougation, in which case all tabled legislation gets set back to zero and all parliamentary commisions are dissolved) , but cemented that we required an official workers opposition and gave notice to the people that we were holding a follow-up event on the subject at a later time.

Now, in the midst of this demonstration, I heard some men talking to one another about how we have to make the country more appealing to buisness interests, and several protesters carried Canadian flags and couched their rhetoric in patriotic crap.

Now, we could have made this issue. We could have informed them that the Canadian state in all of it's forms was and always has been un-democratic and denounced patriotism in all of it's forms, and we could have digressed into a Bullshit conversation with the two men talking about buisness interests.

And if we did, we would have fucked up the entire purpose of the event, disoriented the people from the issue at hand, and acted in a way that did not mobilize anyone or raise the political consciousness. To be honest, if I had found anyone acting in the way that I described at the event, I would have reprimanded them for it, because that is straight provocateur behavior.

It is not our primary function to turn people off of patriotism; the actions of the bourgeois state itself accomplishes that effect for us.

It is also not our function to call out the working class incessently on all of their incorrect notions. They will learn and acquire consciousness through involvement in struggle,as tangible political work has a tendency to invalidate incorrect notions.

It is our function to lead them in their struggles, to raise the political level of their struggles, to organize them into tangible forms and mobilize them in tangible work, and in their involvment with us they will acquire consciounsess.

No respectable party claiming the mantle of Marxism-Leninism has ever dismissed the working class on the grounds of a low level of consciousness. If the working class has a low level of consciousness, on the contrary, that means that it is time time for the party to do their job.



I don't think worn-out workers who would potentially be swayed over by the APL for example care too much about Hoxha.


Hence they don't make Hoxha the issue. Have you read the Red Phoenix?

The new article on Iraq just came out:http://theredphoenix.wordpress.com/

[Die Neue Zeit]

Instead, Chavez is founding yet another organization (presumably one that Venezuela can control the direction of), and is asking all of those around the world ,who have been struggling for decades, to join his fledgling organization instead of going over to them and aiding them in their struggles. In essence and practice, I think that this will manifest as established forces all over the world being called on to abandon their own struggles and become cheerleaders for Venezuela (as so many have been reduced to allready).

The serious and established organizations know that the only way to help Venezuela, or anywhere else, is revolution in their own country.

I think I've said this in other, more Trotskyist-leaning threads, but there are a number of non-Hispanic reformist parties I'd be OK with in the International as a definitive counterweight to Chavez.

Most notably:

1) Die Linke (which released a draft program in German today - see German forum)
2) Japanese Communist Party (it's time for them to stop focusing on just Japan)
3) Whatever the pareconists in the US are attempting to organize

[Proletarian Ultra]

I find it hard to accept the analysis of Chavez as a social democrat. Communist? No. But social democrat? This analysis is based on a reading of Chavez's program, but ignores the difference in the class composition of the Chavez movement in comparison with the class composition of social democracy.

A classic social democrat party is an alliance of (some) workers with the reformist bourgeoisie. As far as I can tell Chavez has little to no support among the bourgeoisie, reformist or otherwise. He does have support among the enlisted men in the army and the reformist section of the officer caste. This is a qualitatively different thing than social democracy.

Lenin, in Left-Wing Communism:


the "Lefts" in Germany (and in Holland) have proved that they are not a party of a class, but a circle, not a party of the masses, but a group of intellectualists and of a few workers who ape the worst features of intellectualism.

Whatever the defects of PSUV, this is not one of them.

Also, Lenin raises this point specifically in the context of "Lefts" not learning from past mistakes. Has Chavez learned from the mistakes of Allende and others? I think so.

Compare Allende: Allende had no base in the army. Which is what did him in. Also, Chavez is building a geopolitical front against imperial interference. Which is the other part of what did Allende in.

Should Communists in Venezuela set themselves up as a separate party in opposition to Chavez? Communist Manifesto:


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

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

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

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

Yes, the 1872 preface says that these words "in practice are antiquated." But only "because...and the progress of history has swept from off the earth the greater portion of the political parties there enumerated." They are still "in principle still correct."

So that looks like a "no" to me. Especially in light of Chavez's internationalism (point #1 in the quotation above).

Are Chavez's measures economically insufficient and untenable? Well f***!!! Manifesto again:


This cannot be effected except...by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.

It has been a long time since a "Proletarian But Not Necessarily Communist" party (Jacob's phrase) existed in the world. But we should be prepared to recognize it when it emerges in front of us. An international of "Proletarian But Not Necessarily Communist" parties is something to be (cautiously) welcomed.