Venezuela: Community and Worker Control

[cyu]

Excerpts from http://links.org.au/node/1582 and http://www.greenleft.org.au/2010/831/42766

The communal councils are grassroots bodies that bring together existing community organisations that have sprung up in Venezuela’s poor neighbourhood around issues such as access to health, education, water and electricity.

The councils encompass 200-400 families in urban areas and 20-50 families in rural areas. Decisions on which problems to prioritise and how to tackle them are made in citizen assemblies open to the entire community.

Funding for the councils comes from the government, but a strong emphasis is placed on relying on local cooperatives, volunteer labour and local expertise to bypass private contractors and empower the community.

Communes bring together various local communal councils and other social organisations in order to tackle problems on a larger scale. There are 187 communes are in the process of being created nationally.

Communes are being encouraged to play a direct economic role, such as creating cooperatives, taking over idle factories to be reopened under worker-community control, and setting up communal markets to sell produces from other communes.

Declaring a state of emergency in the electrical sector, Chavez has called on the workers to actively participate in management.

This has long been a demand of the workers themselves

The new contract not only equalises pay and conditions across the electricity sector (as part of integrating newly nationalised companies with the pre-existing state industry), it also enshrines worker and community participation in management.

Since then, the Federation of Electrical Workers (Fetraelec) and new electricity minister Ali Araque Rodriguez have been removing managers who have operated against the interests of the workers and sabotaged the industry.

In some places, workers have begun to take control over local affiliates of Corpoelec, the national state-owned power company.

“For us, the only way to avoid the concentration of political and economic power in the hands of the oligarchy is to return power to the people.”

One example is the response of large landowners to the government’s land reform program, in which 2.5 million hectares have been redistributed to poor peasants since 2001. In that time, more than 250 peasant leaders have been killed at the hands of paramilitaries hired by large landowners.

In response to this violence, and as part of preparing for a potential foreign military attack, peasant battalions of the Bolivarian militia have been formed this year.

[RedSonRising]

Well, for all of his boisterous personal-style shenanigans in his leadership, Chavez seems to have successfully empowered proletarian communities in taking huge steps towards eliminating exploitative hierarchies.

With the progress that's being made now, the working class is creating it's own emancipatory role in society, with or without the help of the State. Let's just hope the current institutions stay true to this developing goal.

[pranabjyoti]

But, still how this peoples control coup up with the problem of scientific and technological progress isn't clear so far.

[The Vegan Marxist]

But, still how this peoples control coup up with the problem of scientific and technological progress isn't clear so far.

do what? mind explaining better?

[pranabjyoti]

do what? mind explaining better?
Taking control of the industries and the agricultural fields by workers and peasants respectively isn't sufficient for establishing socialism. New technologies and other advancements must be developed and applied in those areas. I am curious to know how this kind of decisions can be taken when workers and peasants control has been established. Moreover, distributing small plots of land to peasants of land to the peasants may satisfy them for time being, but that means nearly end of application of new technology in the agricultural field. For real advancement of agriculture, it must be industrialized and automated. How this can be done?

[RedSonRising]

Taking control of the industries and the agricultural fields by workers and peasants respectively isn't sufficient for establishing socialism. New technologies and other advancements must be developed and applied in those areas. I am curious to know how this kind of decisions can be taken when workers and peasants control has been established. Moreover, distributing small plots of land to peasants of land to the peasants may satisfy them for time being, but that means nearly end of application of new technology in the agricultural field. For real advancement of agriculture, it must be industrialized and automated. How this can be done?

I'm curious, why do you think that technological advancement in agriculture and industry is necessary for definitive socialism to exist in Venezuela? It's about power structures and decision-making, not technological efficiency within the worker/community-controlled economic sectors. If the workers come to a complete degree of control of agriculture, industry, and the general economy, won't technological progression happen within their interest and in the most beneficial way? Automated functions within workplace models are nice and greatly aid the process of participatory transition, but it's not necessary for proletarian democracy.

[pranabjyoti]

I'm curious, why do you think that technological advancement in agriculture and industry is necessary for definitive socialism to exist in Venezuela? It's about power structures and decision-making, not technological efficiency within the worker/community-controlled economic sectors. If the workers come to a complete degree of control of agriculture, industry, and the general economy, won't technological progression happen within their interest and in the most beneficial way? Automated functions within workplace models are nice and greatly aid the process of participatory transition, but it's not necessary for proletarian democracy.
As per very basic Marxist analysis, Socialism is necessary because the capitalist system can only hold the scientific and technological progress upto a level and after that, the scientific and technological development will go against humanity as it is controlled by the capitalists. That means capitalism can not continue after a level of scientific and technological development and on the other hand, socialism can not be established properly without a certain level of scientific and technological progress. For that very reason, even after a revolution, the progress of socialism slowed down in many countries and eventually capitalism regained, mainly due to lack of scientific and technological advancement. Moreover, we all know how devastating our present mode of production is for environment and the whole world. It is now the first and foremost duty of the people who believe is socialism to maintain and increase our present lifestyle, while reducing and at the end stop emission of greenhouse gases and environmentally hazardous factors that are now associated with industrial production worldwide. How can this be possible without scientific and technological progress?

[cyu]

to maintain and increase our present lifestyle


Improve the lifestyle of the poor yes, but maintain the lifestyle of the rich? Obviously I don't think you're actually talking about "maintaining and increasing" the lifestyles of the rich and famous, however, let me point you to these excerpts from http://everything2.com/title/unlimited%20wants%20and%20limited%20resources

One of the problems is that once capitalism had set property ownership in stone, then other people are forced to produce more and more useless things in order to make a living.

For example, say some agribusiness owns vast amounts of farmland and is already producing more than enough food for everybody. Maybe there isn't enough farmland left for anybody else to use, or maybe the agribusiness can simply outcompete any other small-scale farmer trying to enter the market. What's left?

Well, there is no other recourse than to find a non-farming related occupation. Maybe it's entering a factory producing plastic toys for people's dashboards. However, as you can see, this job is really pretty useless - nobody really needs plastic toys on their dashboards. So how is the entire sector of useless industries sustained? Advertising. The goal is to convince the people in the agribusiness to trade you their stuff for your plastic toys.

It's not even like people have an intrinsic need to advertise products - they are only forced to do so because if they don't, their company may go bankrupt and they'll be forced into economic hardship - which is only a problem in capitalist society.

So you've got overworked plastic toy makers and you've got overworked agribusiness employees. This is measured as an increased GDP and considered "increasing prosperity" by some idiots.

So after the bubble pops, of course, the plastic toy makers would be among the first to go - it's much easier to cut back on spending for toys than on spending for food. Maybe the remaining plastic toy makers would redouble their efforts at advertising, trying to convince the food producers that they should buy more toys.

The food producers meanwhile think, "why should I help you unemployed toy makers? I have to work for my living, so you should too." So they go back to working their 80 hour weeks, while the unemployed go back to "working" their 0 hour weeks. "Brilliant", eh?

As I see it, either there are industries that still need people working in them, in which case the economy should train as many of the unemployed that it can to fill those industries... or there aren't any more industries that still need people working in them, in which case the economy should let the people take a f**king break.

[pranabjyoti]

Improve the lifestyle of the poor yes, but maintain the lifestyle of the rich? Obviously I don't think you're actually talking about "maintaining and increasing" the lifestyles of the rich and famous, however, let me point you to these excerpts from http://everything2.com/title/unlimited%20wants%20and%20limited%20resources

One of the problems is that once capitalism had set property ownership in stone, then other people are forced to produce more and more useless things in order to make a living.

For example, say some agribusiness owns vast amounts of farmland and is already producing more than enough food for everybody. Maybe there isn't enough farmland left for anybody else to use, or maybe the agribusiness can simply outcompete any other small-scale farmer trying to enter the market. What's left?

Well, there is no other recourse than to find a non-farming related occupation. Maybe it's entering a factory producing plastic toys for people's dashboards. However, as you can see, this job is really pretty useless - nobody really needs plastic toys on their dashboards. So how is the entire sector of useless industries sustained? Advertising. The goal is to convince the people in the agribusiness to trade you their stuff for your plastic toys.

It's not even like people have an intrinsic need to advertise products - they are only forced to do so because if they don't, their company may go bankrupt and they'll be forced into economic hardship - which is only a problem in capitalist society.

So you've got overworked plastic toy makers and you've got overworked agribusiness employees. This is measured as an increased GDP and considered "increasing prosperity" by some idiots.

So after the bubble pops, of course, the plastic toy makers would be among the first to go - it's much easier to cut back on spending for toys than on spending for food. Maybe the remaining plastic toy makers would redouble their efforts at advertising, trying to convince the food producers that they should buy more toys.

The food producers meanwhile think, "why should I help you unemployed toy makers? I have to work for my living, so you should too." So they go back to working their 80 hour weeks, while the unemployed go back to "working" their 0 hour weeks. "Brilliant", eh?

As I see it, either there are industries that still need people working in them, in which case the economy should train as many of the unemployed that it can to fill those industries... or there aren't any more industries that still need people working in them, in which case the economy should let the people take a f**king break.
Kindly stop describing the inherent self contradictions of capitalism. Most of us know about that well. But still, to increase the life standards of most of people around the world, we need increase in production. As for example, only 6% of people of Africa have Internet access at present. To touch the 100% level, more than 16 times computers and related accessory is necessary. HOW CAN THAT BE POSSIBLE WITHOUT INCREASE IN PRODUCTION OF HARDWARE AND RELATED ACCESSORY. Moreover, this had to be done in an environment friendly way.

[cyu]

But still, to increase the life standards of most of people around the world, we need increase in production.

How can you tell? What if you simply redirected the economic resources that are currently devoted to servicing the ultra-rich, and instead used them to serve the average person? Do you believe that is not enough? If so, do you have stats for why you believe this?

[pranabjyoti]

How can you tell? What if you simply redirected the economic resources that are currently devoted to servicing the ultra-rich, and instead used them to serve the average person? Do you believe that is not enough? If so, do you have stats for why you believe this?
No, I just want to replace the present day technologies and products with much more environment friendly technologies and products. As for example, thermal power is one of the greatest contributor of greenhouse gases. Replacing them with much more environment friendly energy generation technologies can do the magic. So far I can say that much more updated versions of solar energy and other non-conventional energy generation technology is available or can be available with little funding. And when the energy problem will be solved properly, production technologies and product can also see revolutionary changes. We can recycle metal and metallic products in a much larger scale and thus we can maintain our standard lifestyle without harming the environment. By improving and using modern agricultural technologies like hydroponics and other such methods, we can reduce amount of land needed for agriculture. In short, I just want to say that IT IS POSSIBLE.

[cyu]

No, I just want to replace the present day technologies and products with much more environment friendly technologies and products. As for example, thermal power is one of the greatest contributor of greenhouse gases. Replacing them with much more environment friendly energy generation technologies can do the magic. So far I can say that much more updated versions of solar energy and other non-conventional energy generation technology is available or can be available with little funding. And when the energy problem will be solved properly, production technologies and product can also see revolutionary changes. We can recycle metal and metallic products in a much larger scale and thus we can maintain our standard lifestyle without harming the environment. By improving and using modern agricultural technologies like hydroponics and other such methods, we can reduce amount of land needed for agriculture. In short, I just want to say that IT IS POSSIBLE.

Sure, I agree with all that :cool: and post-capitalism, that's pretty much exactly the direction I'd support as well.

However, in my view, I think even without that, simply getting rid of capitalism's imbalance of wealth would go a great deal toward improving everyone's life. The fact that capitalist controlled media tends to focus on improving lives through technology rather than politics or economics is simply because most capitalists don't want to change the political or economic systems that keep them in power (or keep their egos inflated).

[pranabjyoti]

Sure, I agree with all that :cool: and post-capitalism, that's pretty much exactly the direction I'd support as well.

However, in my view, I think even without that, simply getting rid of capitalism's imbalance of wealth would go a great deal toward improving everyone's life. The fact that capitalist controlled media tends to focus on improving lives through technology rather than politics or economics is simply because most capitalists don't want to change the political or economic systems that keep them in power (or keep their egos inflated).
I agree with you. But, I want to add that at present this capitalist system is blocking the advancement of science and technology, which is very very much essential for the survival of mankind in this Earth. We have end capitalism to start the processes necessary for saving mankind from extinction.