Venezuela's planned "Communal Parliament": better than soviets?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Right-wing article: http://english.eluniversal.com/2010/03/19/en_ing_esp_national-assembly-to_19A3609731.shtml




While everybody, both followers and opponents of President Hugo Chávez, dream of a post in the Congress, a plan is under way to shake the National Assembly (AN).

Looking forward to smashing the "bourgeois" system, the government seeks to lay the foundations of the "communal State," including a "communal government" and lately a "communal parliament."

To reintroduce social street parliamentarianism, the AN set a strategy to establish the "communal parliament." It is defined as follows: "An organizational platform which, in accordance with the constitutional principle, regulates its own community; makes lawmaking initiatives and has social control of public management."

This goal involves the establishment of the National Registry of Social Organizations and "community spaces for parliamentarian debate" in 1,134 parishes nationwide.

From the very foundations

AN First Vice-President Darío Vivas leads the effort. "We are teaching people to legislate in order to organize the communal parliament, where the people's organizational base, such as community councils and communes, may draft their own rules," he explained.

The deputy for Caracas and a member of the ruling United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) said that they took as the baseline the advice of President Hugo Chávez, who thinks that communities should enact their "community charters." "These are coexistence standards created for cooperation and social, cultural, political and economic exchange," the PSUV coordinator elaborated.

Will the communal parliament replace the AN? "Remember that sovereignty reposes in people; we are in a participatory democracy with people as the leading characters. We cannot act as representatives of the people's sovereignty; we are just the people's spokespersons," Vivas answered.

"It is people's responsibility to tell us what they want us to approve. They will draft in their communities, in their workplaces, the bills that should come to the AN," the congressman argued.

While no formula has been set yet, Vivas thinks that the communal parliament could "approve on first instance" the texts that will be subsequently considered by the Chamber. "Here we will work for a people's decision-making, lawmaking body," he said.

Step by step

Social street parliamentarianism started this year by considering the Law on People's Participation and Power, the Law on Citizen-Initiated Audits of State Institutions, the Social Ownership Law, the Public Planning Law, the reform of the People's Economy Law and the Law for Communes. This "block" of instruments is aimed at "making people's power stronger."

The Law on People's Participation and Power, approved in a first session by the AN last December 16, states that the commune "is highly committed to citizens in planning, budgeting and governance of communities, enabling the people to exercise power as directly as possible."

According to another document drafted by the AN and recently delivered under social street parliamentarianism, "people's and socialist communes are set to turn into the new political-territorial units in order to wave the new revolutionary social fabric."

In central-western Portuguesa state, Governor Wilmar Castro Soteldo is already trying the community state. The state governor has organized one hundred "communal circuits," sort of groups of community councils that make production projects, manage funds and perform political, ideological and election tasks. "The staunchest opponents were mayors and members of the legislature, all of them of the PSUV," conceded Soteldo on Wednesday, February 24 at the AN Commission for Citizen's Participation.

The legal framework to replace the capitalist State with the communal State has not been set yet. However, Chavezism keeps walking and in order to make progress, it plans to rely on the communal parliament.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Right-wing article: http://english.eluniversal.com/2010/03/19/en_ing_esp_national-assembly-to_19A3609731.shtml

It's hard to tell just yet, but the fact that over 180 communes are present within Venezuela, & now the development of communal parliaments to take place within these communes, it seems Venezuela is heading towards the right direction.

[Usui]

Hugo, didn't anyone tell you that you're supposed to be corrupt as hell and only pretend to be a socialist??

[Patchd]

No, it is akin to what Allende did and is a way to diminish any revolutionary spirit present in the Venezuelan proletariat. Allende also promised the Chilean proletariat 'popular assemblies' as well as setting up state backed 'peasant cooperatives' to undermine the revolutionary act of expropriating land which peasants were taking. The two situations are quite alike. Let's not forget that soviets are set up by the workers themselves, not the bourgeois state.

-------

"In forestalling the workers' self-management of industry by defusing these occupations, Allende actively opposed the establishment of socialist relations of production. As a result of his actions, the Chilean workers only exchanged one set of bosses for another: the government bureaucracy."

"In contrast to the bureaucratic administration of "agrarian reform" which was inherited and continued by the Allende regime, the spontaneous armed seizures of large estates offered a revolutionary answer to the "land question." For all the efforts of the CORA (the central agrarian reform agency) to prevent these expropriations through the mediation of "peasant cooperatives" (asentamientos), the peasants' direct action went beyond such illusory forms of "participation.""

"It was the workers and peasants themselves who took the initiative against the reaction and in so doing created new and radical forms of social organisation, forms which expressed a highly-developed class consciousness. After the bosses' strike in October 1972, the workers did not wait for the UP to intervene, but actively occupied the factories and started up production on their own, without state or trade union "assistance." Cordones industriales, which controlled and coordinated the distribution of products and organised armed defence against the employers, were formed in the factory complexes. Unlike the "popular assemblies" promised by the UP, which only existed on paper, the cordones were set up by the workers themselves. In their structure and functioning, these committees - along with the rural consejos -were the first manifestations of a councilist tendency and as such constituted the most important contribution to the development of a revolutionary situation in Chile."

http://libcom.org/library/strange-defeat-chilean-revolution-1973-pointblank

[vyborg]

Could be a good think, but nothing is better than the soviet to organize workers' power

[Die Neue Zeit]

No, it is akin to what Allende did and is a way to diminish any revolutionary spirit present in the Venezuelan proletariat. Allende also promised the Chilean proletariat 'popular assemblies' as well as setting up state backed 'peasant cooperatives' to undermine the revolutionary act of expropriating land which peasants were taking. The two situations are quite alike. Let's not forget that soviets are set up by the workers themselves, not the bourgeois state.

The problems with soviets are manifold (http://www.revleft.com/vb/material-separation-state-t120151/index.html):

1) Their sheer size prevents them from being working bodies, with their executive-administrative functions being carried out by executive committees and by the equivalent of bourgeois cabinets.

2) Unlike parliaments, cabinets or even the combined legislative-executive-administrative council of the Paris Commune, soviets – like glorified strike committees – don't meet in continuous session to at least hold subordinate bodies to account, instead meeting once every few months at best.

3) No emergence of "workers councils" have posed the question of dual power except where such councils have been created and coordinated by political parties.

[Dimentio]

I think it - no matter what intentions Chàvez might have with these structures - is a step in the right direction. Everything that is weakening parliamentarism will serve to empower the people.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Reformed capitalism is better than unchecked capitalism, comrades. It is the better for the livelihood of workers and for the class struggle. There are many degrees of oppression under a bourgeois regime. Acquiring more rights and more power for workers brings us closer to mass mobilization and revolution, not further.

If you want to be more harshly oppressed by the ruling class because you think it'll make you more revolutionary, that's your business. I don't think you'll win over many workers with that kind of rhetoric, tho. :)

[el_chavista]

Aside this "legally socialist" stuff, in today's session of the PSUV's extraordinary congress, they have a real hot point in agenda: the seizing of the banks. We'll see.

[black magick hustla]

So the proletariat is getting integrated to the State. This is what's been happening this last century.



The capitalist State cannot set up "communes" or "communal parliaments". its akin to Chavez calling for the fifth international.

We must destroy the state.

[Rusty Shackleford]

So the proletariat is getting integrated to the State. This is what's been happening this last century.



The capitalist State cannot set up "communes" or "communal parliaments". its akin to Chavez calling for the fifth international.

We must destroy the state.


my opinion is that he Chavez and the PSUV can only go so far with the bourgeois state. i really do hope that the communal parliament or some other working class arm of government becomes more powerful than the federal government. this way it can really help the people smash the state that gave birth to it and further the revolution.

If Venezuela seizes banks then all the better. one major ingredient missing is the workers militias in factories. but still, i have high hopes for Venezuela.

[The Vegan Marxist]

So the proletariat is getting integrated to the State. This is what's been happening this last century.



The capitalist State cannot set up "communes" or "communal parliaments". its akin to Chavez calling for the fifth international.

We must destroy the state.

Oh yeah, & once Chavez ends the State immediately, then watch the U.S. take it over, with the inevitable help by the Colombians, as we all watch from afar the formation of another bureaucratic U.S. funded system, which will lead to the exploitation of the Venezuelan people again. :thumbup1:

I don't think so.

[vyborg]

I cannot see any problem with the soviet that cannot be easily surpassed by the active participation of the masses.

Yes, we must destroy this state with workers militia. This workers militia will also prevent Colombia and US to attack Venezuela, this is on of the basic task of the proletarian state.

The Psuv is discussing about how to seize the banks? What a good discussion...I wish some mass workers party in Europe had the same discussion

[Rusty Shackleford]

If only the communards seized the bank in paris. that, and attacked Thiers in Versailles when they could have.

question: how would the banking system operate if nationalized in Venezuela? would they still have that profit platform? and if they did, would that be used to subsidize social programs, communes, etc.?

or would it merely act as a place for a Venezuelan to put their money.

[Die Neue Zeit]

So the proletariat is getting integrated to the State. This is what's been happening this last century.

The capitalist State cannot set up "communes" or "communal parliaments". its akin to Chavez calling for the fifth international.

We must destroy the state.

Your post is quite contradictory.

Chavez is a figure who can't be pinned down. I don't think either he or the relevant persons around him are "setting up communes or communal parliaments" in their capacity as statespersons.

On the other hand, they probably are setting up peasant militias in such capacity, with the explicit intention of them complementing the defense apparatus (that's OK, nothing yet with worker militias).


The Psuv is discussing about how to seize the banks? What a good discussion...I wish some mass workers party in Europe had the same discussion

There is: Die Linke (see thread on platform).

[black magick hustla]

Oh yeah, & once Chavez ends the State immediately, then watch the U.S. take it over, with the inevitable help by the Colombians, as we all watch from afar the formation of another bureaucratic U.S. funded system, which will lead to the exploitation of the Venezuelan people again. :thumbup1:

I don't think so.


So the venezuelan people are not exploited now? Capitalist relations exist therefore explotation exist.

My point was that the capitalist state cnanot set up working class organs. So this talk of chavez setting up communal parliaments or whatever is meaningless. Its akin to Libya's "green"constitution, or Algeria's autogestion under Ben Bella.

[Rusty Shackleford]

So the venezuelan people are not exploited now? Capitalist relations exist therefore explotation exist.

My point was that the capitalist state cnanot set up working class organs. So this talk of chavez setting up communal parliaments or whatever is meaningless. Its akin to Libya's "green"constitution, or Algeria's autogestion under Ben Bella.

i dont think its so black and white whether or not the capitalist state can help workers. obviously with the PSUV democratically gaining control of the venezuelan state, they are working towards helping workers.

obviously Social Democracies like Sweden are better than some free market haven in latin america/africa/asia where the state operates to appease the international bourgeoisie.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Please read my "in their capacity as statespersons" above. You're only half-right about the inability of the capitalist state to set up workers organs.

[robbo203]

Reformed capitalism is better than unchecked capitalism, comrades. It is the better for the livelihood of workers and for the class struggle. There are many degrees of oppression under a bourgeois regime. Acquiring more rights and more power for workers brings us closer to mass mobilization and revolution, not further.

If you want to be more harshly oppressed by the ruling class because you think it'll make you more revolutionary, that's your business. I don't think you'll win over many workers with that kind of rhetoric, tho. :)

You are confusing two separate issues here - One the one hand, reformism or the enactment of palliatives by the state ostensibly intended to deal with this or that problem arising from the capitalist basis of society which may also involve changes in the administration of capitalism (e.g.more nationalisation) and on the other, the struggle for basic political rights and freedoms.

Few I think would dispute that greater political freedom is a good thing and will allow the class struggle to be waged more effectively but this is not the same thing as reformism. In fact if there is one thing that will guarantee the muting of class struggle then that is the advocacy of a reformist programme.

[Die Neue Zeit]

You are confusing two separate issues here - One the one hand, reformism or the enactment of palliatives by the state ostensibly intended to deal with this or that problem arising from the capitalist basis of society which may also involve changes in the administration of capitalism (e.g.more nationalisation) and on the other, the struggle for basic political rights and freedoms.

Few I think would dispute that greater political freedom is a good thing and will allow the class struggle to be waged more effectively but this is not the same thing as reformism.

This orthogonal relationship between the political struggle and reforms is something not accounted for by intentional or unintentional advocates of broad economism.

[cb9's_unity]

This will test the mobility and the class consciousness of the Venezuelan proletariat.

Clearly the bourgeois state, even with Chavez at its head, can't abolish itself nor can it abolish exploitation. However it is possible for Chavez to create the tools for the destruction of the bourgeois state. The the working class can harness those tools (the communes) for its own purposes.

If the working class truly does use the communes as a place to organize and educate itself then they could rapidly increase class consciousness. And if the communes serve as a place for the working class to actually create and push forward policy then it can begin to lessen its reliance to the PSUV. Above all, the communes could possibly serve to make the bourgeois state obsolete in the eyes of the working class. Even with the PSUV in power the bourgeois state could do nothing but obstruct working class policy of the communes are actually properly harnessed.

Of course the communes set up by the bourgeois state should be looked at with skepticism. If Chavez gives the bourgeois state power to control the internal workings of the communes then it will be hard for the working class to use them for their own means. However if the communes are truly a place for the working class to freely organize and create policy then there is no reason why the working class shouldn't use them. And when and if the state try's to limit their power the working class should recognize it as a form of aggression and push back.

The proletariat of Venezuela, like the international left, should accept what Chavez can give them but always expect the worst. Essentially we must resist mistakenly denouncing any help that he can give to the revolution as well as not apologizing for denying what he gives to the counter-revolution.

[vyborg]

I agree but to do this you must purge the Psuv from bureaucrats and opportunists...

[zimmerwald1915]

I agree but to do this you must purge the Psuv from bureaucrats and opportunists...
Seeing as how its entire leadership is comprised of bureaucrats and opportunists, how its rules are written to protect bureaucrats and opportunists, how its program was composed by bureaucrats and opportunists in the interests of bureaucrats and opportunists, and how bureaucrats and opportunists don't hesitate to use violence to maintain themselves...that's a rather gargantuan task.:rolleyes:

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

You are confusing two separate issues here - One the one hand, reformism or the enactment of palliatives by the state ostensibly intended to deal with this or that problem arising from the capitalist basis of society which may also involve changes in the administration of capitalism (e.g.more nationalisation) and on the other, the struggle for basic political rights and freedoms.

Few I think would dispute that greater political freedom is a good thing and will allow the class struggle to be waged more effectively but this is not the same thing as reformism. In fact if there is one thing that will guarantee the muting of class struggle then that is the advocacy of a reformist programme.

The place that workers have conquered in the institutional political process are political freedoms. Limited, of course, as they could only be in a bourgeois regime. Direct elections for legislators and executives, universal suffrage, etc. Meanwhile, the Venezuelan state is moving to secure the right to access to food, guaranteeing yet another basic human right, akin to education and healthcare.

If you believe that such instances of reform and progress have set workers back and away from class unity and emancipation, then I don't know what to say to you.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

This orthogonal relationship between the political struggle and reforms is something not accounted for by intentional or unintentional advocates of broad economism.

the fuck does this mean?

[Dermezel]

The proletariat of Venezuela, like the international left, should accept what Chavez can give them but always expect the worst. Essentially we must resist mistakenly denouncing any help that he can give to the revolution as well as not apologizing for denying what he gives to the counter-revolution.

Agreed. Likewise we should advocate the creation of Soviets.

[syndicat]

1) Their sheer size prevents them from being working bodies, with their executive-administrative functions being carried out by executive committees and by the equivalent of bourgeois cabinets.

2) Unlike parliaments, cabinets or even the combined legislative-executive-administrative council of the Paris Commune, soviets – like glorified strike committees – don't meet in continuous session to at least hold subordinate bodies to account, instead meeting once every few months at best.

3) No emergence of "workers councils" have posed the question of dual power except where such councils have been created and coordinated by political parties.

Presumably you're basing this on the St Petersburg soviet?

Take a look at Isreal Getzler's book on the Kronstadt soviet. It was a working body. It had about 350 delegates. They held regular sessions weekly. There were also weekly assemblies in the ships and in workplaces, to hold the delegates accountable and manage the work in that workplace. The Kronstadt Soviet did pose dual power. They proposed that their soviet be the model for a Tioler's Republic throughout Russia.

Proposal of a National Council of Defense (revolutionary governing council), to replace the Republican state, was posed by the anarcho-syndicalist unions in the Spanish revolution (but veto'd by the Marxist parties).

[vyborg]

Seeing as how its entire leadership is comprised of bureaucrats and opportunists, how its rules are written to protect bureaucrats and opportunists, how its program was composed by bureaucrats and opportunists in the interests of bureaucrats and opportunists, and how bureaucrats and opportunists don't hesitate to use violence to maintain themselves...that's a rather gargantuan task.:rolleyes:
Given the millions and millions of members...you have plenty of allies...dont you...

[robbo203]

The place that workers have conquered in the institutional political process are political freedoms. Limited, of course, as they could only be in a bourgeois regime. Direct elections for legislators and executives, universal suffrage, etc. Meanwhile, the Venezuelan state is moving to secure the right to access to food, guaranteeing yet another basic human right, akin to education and healthcare.

If you believe that such instances of reform and progress have set workers back and away from class unity and emancipation, then I don't know what to say to you.

You dont seem to have taken on board the point I was trying to make - that there is a distinction between reformism and the gaining of elementary political rights. They are not the same thing.

It is contradictory to try to mend the system (which is what reformism is about) and to try end it. It has to be one or the other

[Die Neue Zeit]

Presumably you're basing this on the St Petersburg soviet?

Actually, it goes all the way to Congresses of Soviets and even the farcical Supreme Soviet of the USSR itself. I'm sure the Communal Council in Paris had less than 100 members.


Take a look at Isreal Getzler's book on the Kronstadt soviet. It was a working body. It had about 350 delegates. They held regular sessions weekly. There were also weekly assemblies in the ships and in workplaces, to hold the delegates accountable and manage the work in that workplace. The Kronstadt Soviet did pose dual power. They proposed that their soviet be the model for a Toiler's Republic throughout Russia.

Kronstadt is the notable exception to the rule. That rule includes the German räte, forged mainly by that "outstanding role model for left politics today" that was the USPD.

Sovmin at its height had a little over 100 members (chairman, first-vice chairmen, vice-chairmen, chairmen of state committees, ministers, plus the chairmen of the Union Republic Sovmins), yet the body as a whole met only on a quarterly basis, delegating regular work to the Sovmin Presidium and to the individual state committees and ministries themselves.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

You dont seem to have taken on board the point I was trying to make - that there is a distinction between reformism and the gaining of elementary political rights. They are not the same thing.

It is contradictory to try to mend the system (which is what reformism is about) and to try end it. It has to be one or the other

My point is that what you call "elementary political rights" is relative. Venezuelan workers might say that these "communal parliaments" are important, just as you might say that direct elections for legislators and governments is important and that political freedoms are important. These are all reforms and institutions that workers have fought to secure and that make capitalism more fair and give workers important rights.