Worker Self-Management Companies Introduced in Venezuela

[The Vegan Marxist]

I swear, if the anarchists continue to attack Venezuela after reading this, I therefor declare that the anarchists (those who oppose this) are nothing more but simply on a mission to denounce anything that has anything to do with the Chavez, no matter how far he brings his people to Socialism.


Worker Self-Management Introduced in Primary Industry Companies in Guayana, Venezuela

By TAMARA PEARSON
Merida, May 16th, 2010 (Venezuelanalysis.com) – Yesterday president Hugo Chavez swore in a range of directors of state owned companies that comprise the Venezuelan Corporation of Guayana (CVG). The directors were chosen by workers’ working groups and ratified by the president. Chavez also announced a range of measures to further implement the Plan Socialist Guayana, including some nationalisations and eliminating outsourcing.

A range of workers and ministers told the press that it was the first time in CVG history that directors had been nominated by workers, and were workers themselves. CVG includes 15 state-owned primary industry companies in Guayana.

CVG Workers and the government have confronted a range of problems, including corruption, deteriorating machinery, drops in the prices of aluminum and steel, and power shortages. Last year Chavez lent his support to a worker proposed plan for the industries to be directly controlled by workers, called Plan Socialist Guayana, but it has been met by a range of bureaucratic maneuvers to prevent its implementation.

Yesterday, in a ceremony in Alcasa, Chavez was finally able to swear in new directors of some of the companies that make up CVG. They were, Jose China as director of Bauxilum, Jose Mendez for Carbonorca, Elio Sayago for Alcasa, Rada Gamluch for Venalum, Rafael Guerra for Alucasa, Carlos Zzari for Cabelum, Otto Delgado for Alunasa-Costa Rica, and Caros de Oliveira for Sidor.

The new directors swore to completely dedicate themselves against corruption and inefficiency and to productivity and sustainability of each of the companies that form the corporation as well as loyalty to the national government.

A range of ministers and around 600 workers of CVG attended the act.

Workers chose the new directors in working groups that they formed with some of the ministers and sent this list to Chavez, which he approved in its entirety on Thursday.

The executive will take a new approach to the industry, which includes a range of decisions that Chavez announced at the swearing in ceremony.

CVG will reduce the high levels of exportation of primary materials like steel and aluminum, and divert them instead towards local and national projects. Chavez said there needs to be a plan to create companies to process such material in the country.

“The primary material companies in Venezuela were designed just to produce the primary material and hand it over to the international and national private sector so that they could process it and add value, at each stage of the productive chain they were exploiting the workers and speculating with prices,” Chavez explained.

He also ordered that the transport system of the primary material be nationalised. He said that according to studies done during working groups with the workers, the transport system was “one of the main causes of high costs and losses, and a big business for the private companies.”

Chavez motivated a new system of buying and selling in CVG, where, “everything is transparent and not a single cent is lost, because such wealth belongs to the people.”

Another decision is to reduce the levels of dependence on imports such as lime and caustic soda, as well as to talk with state oil company, PDVSA about it buying and nationalising the Venezuelan company Norpro, to then be able to have a direct supply of the chemical propanol.

Chavez also ordered the nationalisation of Matesi, an iron and steel company, and Comsigua, another iron and steel company. The Argentinean owners of Matesi offered the company to the government at a price five times its worth, according to Chavez, and after spending nearly a year negotiating with the two companies, among others, over prices, the government has decided it has no “other alternative but to nationalise them”.

And, as some managers and administrators have been reluctant to provide information required to take some of these decisions, Chavez said, “If some manager or administrator hides information, this is suspicious and should be cause for immediate removal from their position. It’s necessary to defeat such resistance to change.” He warned that some positions are occupied by “enemies of the revolutionary process”.

Chavez also denounced the levels of outsourcing within CVG, where companies like Sidor, paid BsF 423 million ($US 98 million) in 2009 to outsourcing companies, and only 41.34% of this went to the workers’ wages. He said such activity was a way of delivering profits to the bourgeoisie and “leaving us with the losses” and demanded “an end to such a perverse mechanism”.

He called for the creation of a plan that will allow, in the medium term, for the eradication of outsourcing in the area.

Finally, Chavez announced an investment of BsF 432.4 million as well as $125.9 million into modernising a lot of the sector’s machinery. He said this would include renovating and extension of a hospital in the area and improving technology related to electricity supply. He also said the government would pay off BsF 25 million ($US 5.8 million) owed to workers of Ferrominera Orinoco, using a fund created from dividends of the state owned communication company CANTV.

A worker at Alcasa, Alberto Parra, told ABN, “A lot of the managers ...associated with corrupt practices, refused to accept our presence because they know that we bring transparency to the finances, but thanks to President Chavez and the organised working class, our participation in decision making will be stronger and stronger every day.”

“We’re going to construct a great socialist zone here,” Chavez said.

In July last year workers proposed a new model of production based on workers control, which president Chavez supported. He then presented a new plan, “Plan Socialist Guayana 2009-2019” which involved transforming the state owned CVG and its companies into socialist companies. The plan was a result of weeks of discussion among CVG workers and included direct worker control over production, improved working conditions, and public auditing.

http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/5369

[ZeroNowhere]

I therefor declare that the anarchists (those who oppose this)I find it amusing that you may well have just called Bordiga an anarchist, although I am not sure that he would have been all that concerned about your declarations on the matter.


The replacement of the boss and the bourgeois management by some 'factory council' elected as democratically as you want, in other words the replacement of the capitalist enterprise by an enterprise of a cooperative type, would not advance the necessary transformation of the economy by a single step.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

So you're expecting anarchists to become Chavez supporters because there are elections for the managers of state owned companies? You don't see a contradiction there?

[Uppercut]

So you're expecting anarchists to become Chavez supporters because there are elections for the managers of state owned companies? You don't see a contradiction there?

It doesn't matter if it's state owned or not. There needs to be some form of management to keep the paper work and statistics together. Of course, seeing as these guys are elected means that they are more accountable to the workers than they are in capitalist countries. Elected and recallable management helps to reduce bueaurocracy and puts the workers in a much better position to exercise their authority.

Seriously, what's wrong with this?

[REDSOX]

Another great move by chavez and the workers of venezuela. It continues to go further to the left day by day. Even some anachists are having second thoughts about the revolution i hear:rolleyes:

[Delenda Carthago]

This thing happened to Greece in 1980s when PASOK first got elected and still had some socialism cards on its sleeve.

Still,a good move,but dont get to excited.Always think twice.

[REDSOX]

I dont remember PASOK nationalising companies under workers self management. Nationalising companies is not necessarily in itself a move towards socialism but self management certainly is and that is what is so exciting about this move in Venezuela. Maybe some trots will now start to realise what is happening in venezuela is not left nationalism, or bonarpartism but socialism!!

[RebelDog]

Electing directors = self management. Give me a break.

[Leo]

Here's an account of what has actually been going on in Guayana, written by the section of the ICC in Venezuela.


Venezuela: Guayana is a powder-keg: class identity comes through struggle

http://es.internationalism.org/ismo/2000s/2010s/2010/58_edito

“Guayana is a powder-keg”. This phrase is often repeated by the representatives of the bourgeoisie, the leaders of political parties and unions, whether they are members of the opposition or favourable to the Chavez government; this is how all of them talk about the struggles and mobilisations being carried out by the working class in Cuidad Guayana (also known as the ‘Iron Zone’, a huge working class concentration in the state of Bolivar) – movements that express the profound discontent of the Venezuelan working class as a result of the repeated attacks on its living conditions”

What is that frightens the bourgeoisie and its union guard-dogs so much?

The region of Ciudad Guayana is one of the biggest working-class concentrations in the country, with more than 100,000 workers who work in the so-called “Basic Companies” that produce and process iron, steel and aluminium; including an important number of workers in small and medium size companies that supply the big companies.

The whole of the Venezuelan bourgeoisie knows that Guayana is an area to be reckoned with. Since the 1960’s the Guayana proletariat has shown its will to fight; one of the more remarkable struggles took place at the end of the decade, when the workers of the SIDOR steel company (one of the biggest in Latin America) confronted the state forces and the main union at the time, the Confederación de Trabajadores de Venezuela (CTV). At that time, angry steel workers travelled the 380 miles from Guayana to Caracas to protest opposite the CTV headquarters, which were burnt by the strikers.

Chavez’s government had a direct experience of the worker’s courage in May 2001, when the SIDOR workers struck for 21 days due to the management's refusal to discuss the recently expired collective agreement .This forced the CTV and the steel union SUTISS to join forces in order to prevent the strike spreading to other businesses in the region. So serious was the conflict that Chavez himself had to praise the strike’s success to save face for the “workers' government”.

From 2002 on, in Guayana as in the rest of the country, the proletariat was more and more led into political traps by the CTV-controlled unions, who opposed Chavez, as well as by the pro-Chavez unions (with Trostkyist currents acting inside them), who were starting to grow stronger. In this way the bourgeoisie got some peace on the labour front, leading the proletariat onto a ground where its interests didn’t lie, creating division among the workers and weakening their class solidarity.

But in 2007, at the same time as the oil workers were coming into struggle, the Guayana proletariat took up the fight again: the Venezuelan proletariat was searching for its class identity, confronting its enemies with its own demands. In view of this increase in labour conflicts Chavez’s government, with the union’s support, ordered SIDOR’s nationalisation in March 2008; this was greeted with great fanfare. Nevertheless the nationalisation trick failed to stifle the workers' discontent even if it slowed down the demonstrations for some months. The workers kept putting on pressure for the discussion of the collective agreement; the precarious workers of the small businesses linked to the steel company mobilised to demand being hired directly by the steel company. As the permanent workers started showing their solidarity towards the precarious ones, the government and the unions began to attack and weaken this movement. Even so retired SIDOR workers as well as workers in the aluminium, iron and electrical industries held several demonstrations in 2008, demanding outstanding wages among other things (see the article ‘The bourgeois state of Chavez attacks the steel workers’, http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2008/apr/steel-struggles)

But it was during 2009 that the struggle intensified:

- in July the aluminium workers started demonstrations that went on for a week: they demanded the payment of social benefits the workers are normally given in the middle of the year. The government suggested paying this in several parts; this enraged the workers who protested opposite the offices of the CVG (Corporación Venezolana de Guayana), which forced the government to divide the payment into two parts only;

- a few days later a SIDOR worker was killed in an industrial accident. That provoked a 24 hour strike in the steel plant: the workers demanded more investments for repairs because the accident happened as a result of a lack of maintenance in the system;

- that very month SIDOR workers started demonstrations in Guayana to demand payment from a profit-sharing scheme, a bonus the workers get in the middle of the year but which the company had failed to pay;

- in August in Ferrominera Orinoco (an iron extracting company), there was a strike that went on for 16 days in Ciudad Piar. The struggle was particularly strong in the San Isidro mine, where the workers remained firm on their demands for back payments and safety measures, all of them recent benefits achieved in the collective agreement. For 16 days the government and the management kept the strike “blacked out” A month later the general secretary of the Ferrominera union along with 10 workers was put under arrest;

- in October several workers and the CVG union leader were put under arrest too, while protesting opposite the Basic Companies Minister, Rodolfo Sanz, demanding the supply of work uniforms and other contractual claims;

- in December SIDOR workers went on an 8 hour strike because of the delay in the payment of the end-of-the-year bonuses; also the workers of the Basic Companies Carbonorca, Bauxilum and Alcasa protested because of the delay in payment of wages and bonuses;

- in 2009 the Ferrominara, Orinoco and Bauxilum co-op workers protested and so did the precarious employees of a company nationalised in 2009, Matesi.

Given that these mobilisations couldn’t be stopped, either by the bureaucrats in government or by the unions, Chavez himself had to handle the issue: in March 2009 in Ciudad Piar he gave the Basic Company workers the stick, accusing them of pursuing “wealth” and “privileges”, trying to sow discord between them and other workers and the population of the area in order to demoralise them, the same way he did with the oil workers in 2002 . Playing the fear card didn’t work however, and the protests carried on, so he had to come back to Guayana two months later, this time “praising” the workers as a way of winning their support for the Socialist Guayana Plan which was supposed to take the local companies out of the crisis.

According to Chavez Venezuela is armoured against the crisis of capitalism. In fact the Venezuelan state is in a dangerous position because the fall in raw material prices after 2008 has limited national revenue and shown up a long-hidden reality: the Basic Companies are practically bankrupt and are a heavy burden on the state because of their low productivity, resulting from their obsolescence and lack of maintenance. The workers are made to pay the consequences of this of course: the state has refused to discuss the collective agreements on wages and bonuses, wage payments are delayed and the workers are even threatened with redundancies. As the bourgeoisie does at a global level, the crisis is used as a tool to attack workers' living standards and make their employment less secure. And since the end of 2009 rationing in electricity supply has been used to limit the production of iron and aluminium, putting pressure on part of the staff to take forced holidays and developing a situation of distress and insecurity among workers. Pushed by the workers' mobilisations the state has been forced to sign a number of collective agreements but delays in the paying of wages are common and are a frequent source of anxiety among workers.

It can be seen that capitalism's world crisis and its effects on Venezuela has become a factor that increases the workers' willingness to fight, since it cuts the state’s income and therefore the national bourgeoisie's leeway, and they inevitably try to unload the crisis onto the workers' backs. The Guayana companies’ unions, mostly pro-Chavez, are quickly losing credibility among the workers; the attempts to turn the local masses against the workers - using the Consejos Comunales (communal councils)– have failed, since the population is mainly made up of proletarian families whose survival depends on the workers, most of whom work precisely in the Basic Companies. Owing to the high working class concentration and the resistance shown by the workers, the bourgeoisie is not easily able to use the weapon of mass unemployment since it could be the fuel for upheavals and revolt among the population.

This situation has led to an impasse in the region: the bourgeoisie can’t apply its plans in its own way and the proletariat, for the time being, hasn’t got the force to impose itself against the state. This means that Guayana is a pressure cooker that could explode at any time.

The trap of worker’s control

For Chavism and the Venezuelan bourgeoisie, Guayana has been a laboratory in its efforts to his wish to make employment more precarious. After having progressively weakened the working conditions of the oil workers, the bourgeoisie wants to do the same to the workers in the Iron Zone – workers which it sees as part of the “labour aristocracy” produced by the Social Democratic and Social Christian governments before Chavez.

In the middle of the last decade it was intended to make ALCASA (an aluminum producing plant and the first co-managed company) a model for the rest of the companies in the country. Actually the example it set was in the way it attacked the conditions of the aluminium workers, through the promotion of “socialist values”, that is, work more and earn less; something like Stakhanovism, the “socialist emulation” promoted by the Stalinist bourgeoisie, whose main mouthpiece in Cuba was Che Guevara . But workers in ALCASA didn’t buy that, didn’t accept worsening working conditions and reduced benefits, and co-management in the aluminium sector was a complete failure.

The government tried to do something similar with the “Socialist Gurayana Plan”, based on “workers’ control over production” through the “Consejos de Trabajadores” or "Workers' Councils", state institutions allegedly inspired by the Russian soviets of 1917…. Faced with the crisis in the basic industries, Chavism has taken on the Trotskyist slogan of “workers' control”, which is very convenient for the bourgeoisie since it would lead the workers to accept the dterioration of their conditions with the excuse of “saving” the companies; thus, for example, the plan suggests the abolition of the “maximisation of profits at an individual level”. Leading this project are the PSUV (Socialist Unified Party of Venezuela) and the companies' unions, all of them supporters of the Chavez project.

The Trotskyist unions, nowadays dissident Chavists, denounce this plan since it’s not “genuine” workers’ control and the state is still the boss. In this sense they serve to trick the workers into accepting the logic of defending the interests of the national capital, proposing that they should save the companies through a true workers’ control. In short, encouraging the workers to accept a form of self-exploitation where the bureaucrats are replaced by workers (preferably Trotskyist ones of course).

But the workers don’t easily buy such fairy tales: after the Plan was approved last June they carried on the struggle for wage increases. This pushed the state to sign some collective agreements, while the pro-government unions tried to divert workers’ anger into a battle against the bureaucracy who, according to them, are the ones preventing “workers' participation”; they have even gone as far as supporting actions promoted by dissident unions to save their face in front of the workers. This context has been favourable to anti-Chavist union tendencies like the Trostkyist CCURA , who introduce themselves as equally critical of Chavism and the opposition.

Guayana’s proletariat: a hard nut to crack

In view of the persistance of the workers in fighting for their demands, the government has attempted to criminalise the struggle: temporary arrests of workers, redundancy threats, even overt repression. These state actions, accompanied by union sabotage, led the protests to fall back at the beginning of 2010. Nevertheless in Guayana the atmosphere is of unresolved tension, an imposed calm that can explode any time.

The attacks of the Venezuelan bourgeoisie are leading the Guayana proletariat to take a stand on a class terrain, showing that it is not willing to sacrifice itself passively for the bourgeois project of “21st century socialism”. It seems that with the acceleration of capitalism’s crisis the proletariat is recovering its combativeness.

The Guayana proletariat, like the whole of the working class, hasn’t got any other option: either it carries on the fight against the attacks of capital (state or private) or capital will further impoverish workers and their families. The actions of the unions (those false friends of the workers but genuine defenders of national capital), corporatism, co-operativism, workers' control, co-management, all the schemes aimed at locking up the workers in “their “ companies, all of them are factors that hinder the class struggle. The answer to these and other obstacles has been provided by the working class itself: the assemblies where grass-roots workers can express themselves; the spreading of struggles and the seach for class solidarity, not only in Guayana's companies but on a national, even international, level.

In Guayana the conditions are coming together for developing and strengthening solidarity between the workers and the population, since most of the inhabitants of the region have a relative in the local companies. If Guayana’s proletariat is able to keep the fight going in spite of the abuse from government, parties and unions, it will set an example to the rest of the workers in the country, and create a link between its struggle and the movements of the global proletariat in Greece, Spain, France, Peru and other countries.

The task of the most politicised minorities in the class is to take part with all their strength in the process of resistance by the proletariat in Guyana and all around the country; their task is to denounce all the traps and obstacles on the path towards class consciousness. The proletariat of Guayana and Venezuela is not alone in its task, since its fight is part of a movement that is slowly emerging at a global level.

Internacionalismo
06/03/2010

[Delenda Carthago]

I dont remember PASOK nationalising companies under workers self management. Nationalising companies is not necessarily in itself a move towards socialism but self management certainly is and that is what is so exciting about this move in Venezuela. Maybe some trots will now start to realise what is happening in venezuela is not left nationalism, or bonarpartism but socialism!!
Actually in Greece we had real workers management.Which means that workers desided about the bussiness descisions.Even some supermarkets did that.

I hope I am wrong.I dont have any intrests of beeing right...

[pranabjyoti]

I am interested to know how workers and their council will face scientific and technological advancement. So far, I have asked this question many times to many. But, have to find a proper answer yet. Comrades, if the industries run by workers have to survive in future by competing with imperialist backed industries, THIS IS THE PIVOTAL QUESTION THAT HAS TO BE SOLVED. WITHOUT SOLVING THAT QUESTION, I AM PRETTY SURE IN NEAR OR NOT-SO-DISTANT FUTURE THEY HAVE TO INVITE CAPITALISTS AGAIN TO RUN THE INDUSTRIES.

[Starport]

On and up. Keep the capitalists down and out. We will work the rest out ourselves without them. You and I will have to play a part in that by not standing on the side lines.

[Nolan]

So you're expecting anarchists to become Chavez supporters because there are elections for the managers of state owned companies? You don't see a contradiction there?

Well if they don't just because of that then they're dogmatic fucks.

[syndicat]

if these "directors" were actually under the direct election and control of the workers, why would they need Chavez to okay them? and how is the work organized? if there's still a managerial hierarchy, it's not authentic worker self-management. expecting worker power to be handed down from on high by state leaders is a bit unrealistic...

[Uppercut]

if these "directors" were actually under the direct election and control of the workers, why would they need Chavez to okay them? and how is the work organized? if there's still a managerial hierarchy, it's not authentic worker self-management. expecting worker power to be handed down from on high by state leaders is a bit unrealistic...

Look, the workers chose and elected these people to be responsible to their interests. It doesn't matter if Chavez personally swore them in or not. If he was a bureaucratic dictator, he probably would have denied the positions to those the workers elected, but he didn't. Think about it.

The state does not have to be an evil entity.

[Barry Lyndon]

I don't have time for ultra-left whiners who will never lead a revolution themselves but seem to always know what everyone else is doing wrong. And if anyone makes any more comparisons of Chavez to Peron, which ultra-lefts obsessively do because it makes them sound like they know something about Latin American politics, they should be called out for the idiots they are because Peron never had workers management and control of the industries.

[syndicat]

and I don't have time for "revolutionaries" who want to replace the existing boses with a new set of bosses.

[The Vegan Marxist]

and I don't have time for "revolutionaries" who want to replace the existing boses with a new set of bosses.

Too bad these "bosses" are workers, in which were elected by workers.

[Barry Lyndon]

and I don't have time for "revolutionaries" who want to replace the existing boses with a new set of bosses.

I don't have time for a sanctimonious utopian who is willing to have workers go down in one bloody defeat after another so that they can maintain their ideological purity. Plus someone who is so brainwashed they will not actually read the goddamn article before commenting on it.

[Nolan]

It's ok, just slap a black flag on it or a Luxembourg banner and they'll drool for it. Maybe throw in a anti-Stalin chant or two.

[Barry Lyndon]

Several of these threads on Venezuela reveal the sheer delight that certian ultra-lefts take in telling lies.

[Comrade Jack/LeftPolitiko]

I'm don't support Chavez and I'm not even an Anarchist. I'm a Marxist.

Chavez has supported these cooperative programs for years. Overall, they amount to little more than a propaganda campaign. They're underfunded and only a few of them have been remotely successful.

Chavez hasn't moved Venezuela any closer to socialism. Inequality since Chavez came to power has increased. Social spending as a percent of the Venezuelan budget hasn't even really gone up. Chavez has just been lucky enough to have a lot of oil revenue in recent years. Plus, speaking of propaganda campaigns, why does Chavez need to give the First World subsidized heating oil when his own country has to deal with far worse poverty? He's not a revolutionary by any measure.

Chavez is light years better than a lot of these neoliberal regimes in Latin America, but you can't get socialism by voting for hack politicians--especially populists like Chavez who aren't even tied to any significant workers' movements.

[DaringMehring]

I don't think it is ultra-left to question the meaning of these elections. In capitalist societies there are different ways workers elect bosses: cooperatives, state-run enterprises, union elections, political elections. The mere existence of these features does not transform the capitalist relations.

What is important isn't the formality, after all plenty of oppressive states including so-called socialist states hold "elections" and have the formal trappings of democracy. What's important is whether the elections reflect the class power of the proletariat.

At this point, for me it is impossible to tell. The direction of events in Venezuela seems positive, Chavez appears to be moving from third-way populist pseudo-socialism towards more radical socialism. He even called himself a Trotskyist, if I recall correctly. However, we all know politicians like to pontificate and propose, and hate to give up power.

The key questions to me are -- is this a true structure of independent workers councils, which Chavez has repeatedly called for, or something more like a company union? And, will this type of structuring grow with the aim of encompassing the economy of Venezuela, or is it just a concession made to one particular area to defuse pressure from below?

[DaringMehring]

Inequality since Chavez came to power has increased. Social spending as a percent of the Venezuelan budget hasn't even really gone up.

You raise some valid questions, but this part is wrong. Social spending as a percentage of GDP is up from 8% to 20% 1998-2010, HDI is up .802 to .844, and the Gini coefficient is down .49 to .39.

Of course these aren't indicators of socialism or workers' power.

[pranabjyoti]

How this worker elected management will control the research and development? THIS IS VERY VERY IMPORTANT. BUT, SORRY TO SAY, NOBODY IS GIVING ATTENTION TO THIS PIVOTAL QUESTION.

[syndicat]

Plus someone who is so brainwashed they will not actually read the goddamn article before commenting on it.

actually i did read it. it doesn't say how workers are going to actually be making the decisions. in the Mondragon cooperatives the staff elect the general manager. but managers make 4.5 times what workers do, and workers have no real say over day to day operation. so just telling us that a group of "directors" are elected doesn't tell us the mass of workers there will be actually making the decisions. this is like saying that because the mass of the people vote every few years for politicians here in the USA the people run the government.

[black magick hustla]

Several of these threads on Venezuela reveal the sheer delight that certian ultra-lefts take in telling lies.

What lies. We have consistently argued that self-management is not necessarily a class demand. If that was the case, Titoist yugoslavia was communism made manifest. Or Ben bella's autogestione policy in Algeria.

[The Vegan Marxist]

What lies. We have consistently argued that self-management is not necessarily a class demand. If that was the case, Titoist yugoslavia was communism made manifest. Or Ben bella's autogestione policy in Algeria.

When did we say that letting the workers take control over certain industries in Venezuela is socialism or communism? We're saying that this is a another good step towards socialism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ He's a left-communist, so don't expect him to budge on his maximum program.


I'm don't support Chavez and I'm not even an Anarchist. I'm a Marxist.

Chavez has supported these cooperative programs for years. Overall, they amount to little more than a propaganda campaign. They're underfunded and only a few of them have been remotely successful.

If you advocate perpetually funding them, you're advocating the same line advocated by Lassalle with his "producer cooperatives with state aid" slogan. [Not that eminent domain and startup aid is bad, but perpetual aid like state credit can be.]

Furthermore, there have been "social" conditions attached to the aid, conditions which at least some coops can't meet.

[Comrade Jack/LeftPolitiko]

You raise some valid questions, but this part is wrong. Social spending as a percentage of GDP is up from 8% to 20% 1998-2010, HDI is up .802 to .844, and the Gini coefficient is down .49 to .39.

Of course these aren't indicators of socialism or workers' power.
It is right to question my data and assertions, but much of your data is wrong or inadequate. Granted, some of my arguments are dated and need correction.

A better measure of income inequality is the GINI index, not just the coefficient. The index stood at 49.5 in 1998--the year Chavez was elected. Presently it is at 41 (this stat comes from the 2010 CIA report because the most recent UN report is from 2003), which seems like a significant achievement until one looks at the historical data.

Throughout Chavez's tenure, the index has seen fluctuations. For example, in 2000, the index stood at 44.04 percent. In 2003, it rose to 48.2. If we are to accept the CIA's statistics, then the index under Chavez is at nearly the same level as it was in 1993--long before Chavez was president. How much of this is due to any of Chavez's policies is unclear to me and I suspect that few can really demonstrate that his policies had anything to do with the 8.5 point decrease. Moreover, does this constitute a radical redistribution of wealth in Venezuela? Of course not.

sources:
"Nationmaster" /time.php?stat=eco_gin_ind&country=ve (i can't post links yet)

CIA World Fact Book

As for social spending, as a percentage of GDP, it has increased by 5% since Chavez (up to around 13.2-13.5 according to the most recent data.) While good, it's still not that impressive.

source:
A CEPR page entitled "Social Spending in Venezuela"

I don't deny that the human development index has improved slightly in Venezuela. Like I said, Chavez has been good for Venezuela in many ways, but he has moved Venezuela toward socialism about as much as Obama has moved the United States toward socialism (not very much.)

[Barry Lyndon]

What lies. We have consistently argued that self-management is not necessarily a class demand. If that was the case, Titoist yugoslavia was communism made manifest. Or Ben bella's autogestione policy in Algeria.

No you haven't all you do is scream 'workers control, worker's control', and when that is shown, albeit on a limited and imperfect scale and in the midst of construction, you go 'ohhhh but thats workers MANAGEMENT'. You constantly move the goalpost for what is a legitimate socialist revolutionary process, so whatever the reality is, its not socialism as you define it. It's a dishonest method of argument, and you know it. Just come out and say that there is nothing that the Venezuelan people could do that would satisfy you. Just come out and say it. I'd respect you more for it.

And what was wrong with Yugoslavia? Do tell. Your obviously so much more brilliant then they were. Such geniuses, in fact, that your ilk has never managed to get a mass following among workers anywhere on the entire friggin surface of the earth for the last century or so.

[Ovi]

As syndicat already said, just because we elect the mayor that doesn't mean we self-manage the town.

Too bad these "bosses" are workers, in which were elected by workers.
What's with this fetish for having ex-worker leaders? Many of the capitalists today used to be workers too; does that excuse their exploitation of other people?

[zimmerwald1915]

No you haven't all you do is scream 'workers control, worker's control', and when that is shown, albeit on a limited and imperfect scale and in the midst of construction, you go 'ohhhh but thats workers MANAGEMENT'. You constantly move the goalpost for what is a legitimate socialist revolutionary process, so whatever the reality is, its not socialism as you define it. It's a dishonest method of argument, and you know it. Just come out and say that there is nothing that the Venezuelan people could do that would satisfy you. Just come out and say it. I'd respect you more for it.
I'm not sure what "you" you're talking about. Maldoror, and left communists generally, do not call for workers' control. Left communists call for workers' revolution, the political control over society by the working class. Moreover, left communists consider that the "legitimate social revolutionary process" can only begin once that control is in place. And left communists say this quite clearly. You, on the other hand, consider that socialism can be created by the state for the benefit of the working class. Now, that'd be just fine if it remained a political disagreement. This is a discussion board, and nobody's gonna get a mass following by discussing on a discussion board. However, misrepresenting what left communists say, and then accusing left communists of "moving the goalposts" is intellectually dishonest and a little bit scummy.

Haters gotta hate.

[Uppercut]

What's with this fetish for having ex-worker leaders? Many of the capitalists today used to be workers too; does that excuse their exploitation of other people?

Why do you consider them ex-workers? How do you know they will completely halt in their production and turn into corrupt bueaurocrats?
Comparing appointed capitalists management to worker-elected management is very inconsistent, and quite close-minded. I mean, are you anarchists gonna be happy with anything we do?

[Q]

Why do you consider them ex-workers? How do you know they will completely halt in their production and turn into corrupt bueaurocrats?
Comparing appointed capitalists management to worker-elected management is very inconsistent, and quite close-minded. I mean, are you anarchists gonna be happy with anything we do?

As has been pointed out before the problem is not so much that workers are elected to run a company, but that they do so within the framework of capitalism. All that has been achieved now is that workers are now more tied to "their" company than before and that workers themselves are now bearing the responsibility of competing with other companies and thus exploiting other groups of workers. Not exactly a tremendous step forward I think. Also, the ICC article posted by Leo puts things into context of why the state is prepared to go along with this.

[AK]

Electing directors = self management. Give me a break.
This.

It's anagulous to Bourgeois representative democracy. Who does it really represent? Most of today's Bourgeois politicians were elected into power, yet they don't represent the workers' voices one bit.

[Uppercut]

As has been pointed out before the problem is not so much that workers are elected to run a company, but that they do so within the framework of capitalism. All that has been achieved now is that workers are now more tied to "their" company than before and that workers themselves are now bearing the responsibility of competing with other companies and thus exploiting other groups of workers. Not exactly a tremendous step forward I think. Also, the ICC article posted by Leo puts things into context of why the state is prepared to go along with this.

Well, it's better than nothing. It's a process, afterall. I'm not a hardcore Chavezista but I consider this move a step in the right direction. Competition won't end abruptly and I'm not denying that Venezuela is not 100% socialist. But I don't oppose these measures at all.

[AK]

Well, it's better than nothing.
Voting Labour is better than nothing, also.

[Q]

Well, it's better than nothing. It's a process, afterall. I'm not a hardcore Chavezista but I consider this move a step in the right direction. Competition won't end abruptly and I'm not denying that Venezuela is not 100% socialist. But I don't oppose these measures at all.

Let me put it more strongly because I don't think I'm getting through to you here: In a sense it is a step backward exactly because workers are now made responsible to compete with other companies and exploit other groups of workers more harshly so that their coop may survive. It can be used as a tool by the bourgeoisie to undermine class solidarity. This is not progress but, as the ICC article phrased it, a trap.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Comrade, do you think the phraseology of my 32-hour workweek demand is negative then?

The ecological reduction of the normal workweek even for working multiple jobs – including time for workplace democracy, workers’ self-management, broader industrial democracy, etc. through workplace committees and assemblies – to a participatory-democratic maximum of 32 hours or less without loss of pay or benefits but with further reductions corresponding to increased labour productivity, the minimum provision of double-time pay or salary/contract equivalent for all hours worked over the normal workweek and over 8 hours a day, the prohibition of compulsory overtime, and the provision of one hour off with pay for every two hours of overtime

Also, similar management may still be employed by the working class even after the bourgeoisie is gone from the scene (so long as there's no planned economy), a la Yugoslavia.

It should be noted that I added "broader industrial democracy" to counter the main weakness of "workplace democracy" and "workers' self-management": sectionalism (given the experience of "yellow" tred-iunionizm).

[RebelDog]

Voting Labour is better than nothing, also.

Or maybe Tory, after all they proposed workers co-ops in the public sector. I wonder if the marxists here believe that this is 'another good step toward socialism' dictated from above. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/feb/15/tories-cooperatives-osborne

[ZeroNowhere]

It would seem that not many (http://www.revleft.com/vb/tories-like-co-t129341/index.html) would.

[RadioRaheem84]

Chavez hasn't moved Venezuela any closer to socialism. Inequality since Chavez came to power has increased. Social spending as a percent of the Venezuelan budget hasn't even really gone up. Chavez has just been lucky enough to have a lot of oil revenue in recent years. Plus, speaking of propaganda campaigns, why does Chavez need to give the First World subsidized heating oil when his own country has to deal with far worse poverty? He's not a revolutionary by any measure.

It should also be pointed out that Chavez didn't enter into office a socialist, but an admitted third way advocate of the Tony Blair variant, as he even admired Tony Blair. It wasn't until his dealings with the Venezuelan bourgeoisie and the 2002 coup that he he shifted to the left. From 02 and on is where we started seeing his policies take a sharp left turn.

http://directaction.org.au/issue4/venezuela_from_third_way_to_socialist_revolution

[Uppercut]

So basically what everyone is saying is that Chavez is a "Stalinist" that could care less about the workers, and that his methods are specifically designed to "trap" and "destroy" the working class even further? So he's made little to no contribution of furthering socialism in Venezuela?

Also, if you guys are so agianst both self-management, and state-owned enterprises, then what do you want? (and btw, I'm not too sold on that ICC article. Denouncing every single socialist movement, past or present is not exactly a good stance to take).

[Barry Lyndon]

So basically what everyone is saying is that Chavez is a "Stalinist" that could care less about the workers, and that his methods are specifically designed to "trap" and "destroy" the working class even further? So he's made little to no contribution of furthering socialism in Venezuela?

Also, if you guys are so agianst both self-management, and state-owned enterprises, then what do you want? (and btw, I'm not too sold on that ICC article. Denouncing every single socialist movement, past or present is not exactly a good stance to take).

Left-communism is a religion. Since there has never been a left-communist revolution in all of modern history, either left communism is a bad theory, or all rival ideologies are wrong and their revolutions must be cynical frauds and disasters, just like the capitalists say they are. All other socialist revolutionaries must be failures in order for left communists to succeed, because the left communist theories are infallible. Never mind silly things like actually putting theory into practice, that is something that only 'Stalinists', 'populists', 'petty-bourgeois nationalists' do. Oooooo big words, it makes you feel so important!

[RadioRaheem84]

Left-communism is a religion. Since there has never been a left-communist revolution in all of modern history, either left communism is a bad theory, or all rival ideologies are wrong and their revolutions must be cynical frauds and disasters, just like the capitalists say they are. All other socialist revolutionaries must be failures in order for left communists to succeed, because the left communist theories are infallible. Never mind silly things like actually putting theory into practice, that is something that only 'Stalinists', 'populists', 'petty-bourgeois nationalists' do. Oooooo big words, it makes you feel so important!

I am glad that left coms are so cautious of politicians and people in high places, but when it comes to Venezuela they are usually dead wrong. I was on my way to becoming a left-com or anarchist, but I cannot just abandon the gains workers make through some policies because it's not "perfect".

[Robocommie]

I will say though that I think there's a place here for valid criticism, while democracy within the workplace is good, and a step up, I think it ultimately needs to end in worker ownership of the workplace, because without the elimination of private ownership, real democracy isn't possible.

That said, I'm a big believer in worker's cooperatives, and I don't give a fuck if David Cameron says he likes it too. If David Cameron led a measure to strip every single factory, mine, lumber yard, shipyard and market from their owners and deliver it straight to their workers, then that's good. The point is, he won't, so it's moot.

[Barry Lyndon]

I am glad that left coms are so cautious of politicians and people in high places, but when it comes to Venezuela they are usually dead wrong. I was on my way to becoming a left-com or anarchist, but I cannot just abandon the gains workers make through some policies because it's not "perfect".

Basically, their so far left, so utterly uncompromising in their demand for total revolution or nothing, that they swing to the right and denounce all existing revolutions as fervently as a reactionary would.

[ZeroNowhere]

Except that they do so from the left, meaning that they never swing to the right at all, although this doesn't allow as many cheap rhetoric points.


Left-communism is a religion. Since there has never been a left-communist revolution in all of modern history, either left communism is a bad theory, or all rival ideologies are wrong and their revolutions must be cynical frauds and disasters, just like the capitalists say they are. All other socialist revolutionaries must be failures in order for left communists to succeed, because the left communist theories are infallible. Never mind silly things like actually putting theory into practice, that is something that only 'Stalinists', 'populists', 'petty-bourgeois nationalists' do. Oooooo big words, it makes you feel so important!Your posts tend to be rather repetitive and certainly not geared towards any worthwhile debate on the matter, but it would be good if you could at least repeat coherent arguments, even if still like a broken record.

[autonomous bomb thrower]

Many people here do not seem to understand what workers management means. State enterprises are managed by workers "collectively". This means all problems and discussions on the path of production are to be managed and discussed by the workers via workers councils. How enterprises use and manage there money is discussed collectivly by workers including topics such as wages, benefits and production plans. If plans are not implemented correctly the director resumes full responsibility for not following the needs of the workers and is removed and another director is elected. These councils discuss the director’s report and root out all of the problems hindering productivity. These councils can also dismiss leaders so any claims of the managers holding power over the enterprise is thrown right out the door. You must understand after revolution there is still differences within socialist relations of production which will not be fixed instantly such things include mental and manual labor. This will take time to consolidate.

[REDSOX]

It really does amaze me the position of some leftists on these boards who seem to criticise chavez no matter what he does. This move in the guayana is a great step towards the building of socialism in venezuela. Workers self management is an important ingredient in creating the new socialist society, without it, you will get bureacratic socialism degeneration of the planned economy and eventually like the carcass of the soviet union collapse and counterrevolution. If anyone doubts this development and its significance then ask the workers in these companies what they think, by all accounts they are estastic about this and i cant blame them, in fact i am quite envious of them.

[RadioRaheem84]

If anyone doubts this development and its significance then ask the workers in these companies what they think, by all accounts they are estastic about this and i cant blame them, in fact i am quite envious of them.Me too. I would love for this "pseudo-socialism" to happen in the US.

[ZeroNowhere]

It really does amaze me the position of some leftists on these boards who seem to criticise chavez no matter what he does.As was pointed out on the first page by a certain Amadeo Bordiga, the left commies are generally being quite consistent in being somewhat indifferent to this, rather than changing their beliefs in any way to criticise Chavez.


You must understand after revolution there is still differences within socialist relations of production which will not be fixed instantly such things include mental and manual labor.Co-operatives do not socialism make.

[Zanthorus]

there has never been a left-communist revolution in all of modern history

Perhaps because in the two countries in which they constituted a majority (Italy and Germany) they were ousted from their respective communist parties for failing to follow the line laid down by the comintern.

[RadioRaheem84]

Co-operatives do not socialism make.

I am really trying to understand the logic of the left-coms, so perhaps you can help me out. So would it have been better for the workers to not have gained what they did under Chavez? I mean was the pre-Chavez Venezuela better for workers than the "pseudo-socialism" going on now?
I mean what is the position besides critiquing every move the Venezulan revolution takes?

[Barry Lyndon]

Perhaps because in the two countries in which they constituted a majority (Italy and Germany) they were ousted from their respective communist parties for failing to follow the line laid down by the comintern.

Translation: "WAAAA! They were ousted from those parties! WAAAAA WAAAAA WAAAAA!!!!"

Yeah, and other Marxist and anarchist tendencies have been purged, jailed, tortured, massacred, and/or violently repressed in any number of ways. And yet they have still managed to lead at least one friggin revolution in the last 90+ years or so.

[REDSOX]

The guayana model of workers management could be a model for other industries and services in venezuela. I believe something similar is happening in CORPOLEC the state owned electricity company. When the current labor law in venezuela assembly is eventually passed it will grant venezuelan workers even more power and rights such as a six hour day and the compulsory formation of workers councils in state owned and private industry. That will be another great step forward. Ideally the model should be the state owns the workers manage as every other model they have tried in venezuela such as co-ops and co management has not worked and we know all to well that bureacratic top down management does not work. Good luck to them the eyes of workers and peasents around the world are looking at them.

[Barry Lyndon]

Except that they do so from the left, meaning that they never swing to the right at all, although this doesn't allow as many cheap rhetoric points.

Are you kidding? It is a standard right-wing and liberal talking point that socialist revolutionaries never live up to their ideals, that they are hypocrites and cynical frauds who just dupe the masses in their self-serving quest for power. The only difference is because they say its an inevitable consequence of the fact that socialism never works, while you say its because they haven't been properly enlightened by reading Daniel DeLeon or something. Basically, in basic content it comes down to the same argument, if not the same form-socialist revolution is always a failure, everywhere, all the time.

[Zanthorus]

I am really trying to understand the logic of the left-coms, so perhaps you can help me out.

The basic "logic" of Left-Communism is Marx's logic - Socialism is the association of producers without classes, wages or the state. Calling anything other than this "socialism" is disingenous especially when those movements have never stated this as their explicit aim.


So would it have been better for the workers to not have gained what they did under Chavez? I mean was the pre-Chavez Venezuela better for workers than the "pseudo-socialism" going on now?
I mean what is the position besides critiquing every move the Venezulan revolution takes?

I'm not criticising any gains made. I've supported Chavez against the liberals and their cries of "dictator". However at the moment I think it's disingenous to call this a movement toward "socialism" when no-one has explicitly stated the aim of the Bolivarian revolution as an evolution towards that although they have made overtures about workers control which is a step in the right direction.

At the moment I also think it's disingenous to call it a "revolution" since that would engender that the working classes were organised as the ruling class and already engaging in the process of reorganising the process of social [re-]production.

Events in Venezuela are encouraging but for this movement to go beyond the horizons of capitalist society it will need to start acting autonomously from the Venezuelan state. It will also need to be more clear about it's goals.

Another major obstacle for calling this a "revolution" or a movement towards "socialism" is the lack of any co-ordination with other international movements striving for the same goals. So far all I've seen is Chavez teaming up with Iran. Not exactly promising.


Trnaslation: "WAAAA! They were ousted from those parties! WAAAAA WAAAAA WAAAAA!!!!"

Translation: "I'm a petty sectarian who can't hold a reasoned discussion."


Yeah, and other Marxist and anarchist tendencies have been purged, jailed, tortured, massacred, and/or violently repressed in any number of ways. And yet they have still managed to lead at least one friggin revolution in the last 90+ years or so.

So basically what this boils down to is a "my revolutionary dick is bigger than yours" discussion where we add up how many revolutions our tendencies have waged and then see who comes out on top. That's not really helping discussion. All the socialist revolutions for the past one hundred and thirty nine years have ended in the restoration of capitalism in one way or another. That should be a message that something's wrong with the traditional model of a socialist revolution or at least the way it's been carried out in the past. Left-Communists offer an alternative interpretation to the failure of these movements than the traditional Trotskyist, Marxist-Leninist, Anti-Revisionist and Anarchist answers. Maybe it would be a good idea to start listening with an open mind instead of being a petty sectarian.


It is a standard right-wing and liberal talking point that socialist revolutionaries never live up to their ideals, that they are hypocrites and cynical frauds who just dupe the masses in their self-serving quest for power.

You'll be hardpressed to find a Left-Communist who actually argues this. Talking about "hypocrites" who "dupe the masses in their self-serving quest for power" is really more of an anarchist talking point.

[Barry Lyndon]

Another major obstacle for calling this a "revolution" or a movement towards "socialism" is the lack of any co-ordination with other international movements striving for the same goals. So far all I've seen is Chavez teaming up with Iran. Not exactly promising.

Certianly not promising for a liar. Venezuela has far closer ties with Bolivia, Ecuador, and Cuba, trying to establish a pan-American left-wing alliance. Ever heard of the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas? There's even been a call for a Fifth International. But don't take off those sectarian blinders.

[Robocommie]

The guayana model of workers management could be a model for other industries and services in venezuela. I believe something similar is happening in CORPOLEC the state owned electricity company. When the current labor law in venezuela assembly is eventually passed it will grant venezuelan workers even more power and rights such as a six hour day and the compulsory formation of workers councils in state owned and private industry. That will be another great step forward. Ideally the model should be the state owns the workers manage as every other model they have tried in venezuela such as co-ops and co management has not worked and we know all to well that bureacratic top down management does not work. Good luck to them the eyes of workers and peasents around the world are looking at them.

What about payment structure? I'm open to the idea of state ownership with worker's management, but how would the workers be paid under this system? Generously, I would hope.

[Zanthorus]

Venezuela has far closer ties with Bolivia, Ecuador, and Cuba, trying to establish a pan-American left-wing alliance.

I can't see much in the way of "socialism" coming from any of those three countries.

[Robocommie]

The basic "logic" of Left-Communism is Marx's logic - Socialism is the association of producers without classes, wages or the state. Calling anything other than this "socialism" is disingenous especially when those movements have never stated this as their explicit aim.


That sounds more like Communism than Socialism.

[Barry Lyndon]

I can't see much in the way of "socialism" coming from any of those three countries.

Not even Cuba? Wow.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Voting Labour is better than nothing, also.

That statement ignores the entire situation & process of which is going on in Venezuela. Completely irrelevant.

[Zanthorus]

That sounds more like Communism than Socialism.

The difference between the two is mostly fabricated though. Early socialists like Fourier advocated what could be called a kind of communism. For Marx anyway the only distinction made was for propaganda purposes in his early work to distuinguish between himself and the utopians. In private letters he and Engels were much more loose with the terms as well as in later theoretical work. For Marx, and hence Left-Communists, "socialism" and "communism" are usually used to mean the same thing.


Not even Cuba? Wow.

I don't see what's so controversial about the fact that Cuba is not a socialist society.

[Barry Lyndon]

I don't see what's so controversial about the fact that Cuba is not a socialist society.

It's not a fact. It's an assertion your making without evidence.
If it isn't a socialist society, I guess it wouldn't make any difference if the Miami mafia moved back into Havana. I mean, there's nothing for the workers to defend, right?

[The Vegan Marxist]

The basic "logic" of Left-Communism is Marx's logic - Socialism is the association of producers without classes, wages or the state. Calling anything other than this "socialism" is disingenous especially when those movements have never stated this as their explicit aim.


Like said above, what you're talking about is under Communism, not Socialism.

[Zanthorus]

It's not a fact. It's an assertion your making without evidence.

It shouldn't really be a controversial fact that wage-labour and the state still exist in Cuba.


If it isn't a socialist society, I guess it wouldn't make any difference if the Miami mafia moved back into Havana. I mean, there's nothing to defend, right?

Why do you assume that everything positive and progressive has to be socialist? I can support the gains of workers under various social-democratic regimes and oppose Imperialist intervention in those countries without having to refer to them as "socialist".


Like said above, what you're talking about is under Communism, not Socialism.

Maybe you should change your user title then. Seeing as how what I described was the progressive alternative to capitalism (i.e socialism) as articulated by Karl Marx.

[Robocommie]

The difference between the two is mostly fabricated though. Early socialists like Fourier advocated what could be called a kind of communism. For Marx anyway the only distinction made was for propaganda purposes in his early work to distuinguish between himself and the utopians. In private letters he and Engels were much more loose with the terms as well as in later theoretical work. For Marx, and hence Left-Communists, "socialism" and "communism" are usually used to mean the same thing.


What about the transition period under the dictatorship of the proletariat?

[Zanthorus]

What about the transition period under the dictatorship of the proletariat?

Marx never referred to that as socialism. As far as I am aware that particular idea about "socialism" existing in the transitional phase was created by Lenin although I could be wrong on this since most of Lenin's theoretical errors were inherited from the second international.

[Crux]

This thing happened to Greece in 1980s when PASOK first got elected and still had some socialism cards on its sleeve.

Still,a good move,but dont get to excited.Always think twice.Unless you're burning a bank. Sorry couldn't resist.

[Robocommie]

Marx never referred to that as socialism. As far as I am aware that particular idea about "socialism" existing in the transitional phase was created by Lenin although I could be wrong on this since most of Lenin's theoretical errors were inherited from the second international.

Let's say I accept that for the sake of discussion. What is the Left Communist answer for why revolutions have historically failed to manifest in the most industrialized societies, as Marx had predicted, and instead revolutionary Marxism has found the most fertile ground in some of the least industrialized societies?

[Ligeia]

Calling anything other than this "socialism" is disingenous especially when those movements have never stated this as their explicit aim.
However at the moment I think it's disingenous to call this a movement toward "socialism" when no-one has explicitly stated the aim of the Bolivarian revolution as an evolution towards that although they have made overtures about workers control which is a step in the right direction.

What do you mean?

There's a plan called "Project Simon Bolivar First Socialist Plan" (for 2007-2013) which states a "new socialist ethic" and a "socialist productive model"(elimination of social divisions and hierarchies) as its aims among other things. There has been a lot of talk about "constructing socialism" in the last years in Venezuela.
This workers control-process is also a part of the Plan Socialist Guayana which makes references to the "socialist productive model"-aim of Plan Bolivar.



At the moment I also think it's disingenous to call it a "revolution" since that would engender that the working classes were organised as the ruling class and already engaging in the process of reorganising the process of social [re-]production.
Events in Venezuela are encouraging but for this movement to go beyond the horizons of capitalist society it will need to start acting autonomously from the Venezuelan state. It will also need to be more clear about it's goals.

That's probably true. There needs to be more organization and consciousness.
E.g. that Plan Guayana proposes the creation of an institution for political-ideological formation (but also for technological research and production for a socialist corporation).
Although, there already exists a workers university (which seems to be similar but not specifically for this Plan Guayana).

[Zanthorus]

Let's say I accept that for the sake of discussion. What is the Left Communist answer for why revolutions have historically failed to manifest in the most industrialized societies, as Marx had predicted, and instead revolutionary Marxism has found the most fertile ground in some of the least industrialized societies?

Well since "Left-Communism" isn't a homogenous political block but encompasses various different tendencies. I'm also not the most orthodox of "Left-Communists" so keep in mind my answer on this one might be fairly idosyncratic.

However to start with I think the premise is not entirely accurate. At the same time as the revolution in Russia there were revolutionary situations in Italy and Germany which the Marxist Left failed to capitalist on for various reasons (Betrayal by the Social-Democratic parties and trade unions was probably the main one). Let's not forget Mai 68 and stuff like the Italian Hot Autumn and years of lead. There has also been a lot of class struggle in first world countries even if it hasn't manifested itself into a revolutionary movement. The british General Strike of '26 or the poll tax riots of the early 90's come to mind.

As for those "revolutionary Marxist" movements you name in third world countries, that's up for debate. Bordiga for his part developed an analysis of those revolutions as just capitalist revolutions because of their focus on the agrarian revolution.

I would emphasise the role of Social-Democracy, Stalinism and regular Trade Unionism as counter-revolutionary forces and the failure of the Marxist left to address these issues. I would also note the lack of any real "Marxism" in a lot of places and it's replacement with a mixture of deterministic fatalism and rhetoric about "exploiters" and "the people". Read through the "Marxist" literature of the past hundred years and you won't find many attempts within the mainstream to grapple with the idea of a "truely human community".


There's a plan called "Project Simon Bolivar First Socialist Plan" (for 2007-2013) which states a "new socialist ethic" and a "socialist productive model"(elimination of social divisions and hierarchies) as its aims among other things. There has been a lot of talk about "constructing socialism" in the last years in Venezuela.

Talking about "socialism" isn't necessarily enough to make it so. I'd like to hear what exactly they mean by "socialism".

[Ligeia]

Talking about "socialism" isn't necessarily enough to make it so.
You were talking about how those movements never "stated" that socialism is their aim. Not about actions.

I'd like to hear what exactly they mean by "socialism".Abolition of the division in classes (hence capitalist work relations,abolition of bourgeoisie),workers' democracy, abolition of private property into social property.

[Zanthorus]

You were talking about how those movements never "stated" that socialism is their aim. Not about actions.

Fair play. Although what I was trying to get at is that no-one has explicitly come out and said "our movement is a movement towards a society where directly social associated labour replaces waged labour and the public power is dissolved into the social body and loses it's political character" or words to that effect.


Abolition of the division in classes (hence capitalist work relations,abolition of bourgeoisie),

The Soviet Union claimed to have abolished "classes" yet one group still held power over another group within the process of social [re-]production.


abolition of private property into social property.

What exactly is meant by "social property"?

[Robocommie]

Well since "Left-Communism" isn't a homogenous political block but encompasses various different tendencies. I'm also not the most orthodox of "Left-Communists" so keep in mind my answer on this one might be fairly idosyncratic.

Fair enough.



However to start with I think the premise is not entirely accurate. At the same time as the revolution in Russia there were revolutionary situations in Italy and Germany which the Marxist Left failed to capitalist on for various reasons (Betrayal by the Social-Democratic parties and trade unions was probably the main one). Let's not forget Mai 68 and stuff like the Italian Hot Autumn and years of lead. There has also been a lot of class struggle in first world countries even if it hasn't manifested itself into a revolutionary movement. The british General Strike of '26 or the poll tax riots of the early 90's come to mind.

Obviously class struggle existed and has existed, and it's also clear that change has occurred as a result of these actions. However, none of them succeeded, when the orthodox Marxist argument tends to be that it is the only place where revolutions are supposed to occur.



As for those "revolutionary Marxist" movements you name in third world countries, that's up for debate. Bordiga for his part developed an analysis of those revolutions as just capitalist revolutions because of their focus on the agrarian revolution.

I have not read Bordiga's writings, but with respect, that sounds a bit chauvinist to me. What is the rural proletariat supposed to do when faced with repression and exploitation? Nothing? Does Marxism only have something to offer to people in urbanized, industrialized societies or is it more universal in it's approach to solving human problems?

[Ligeia]

Fair play. Although what I was trying to get at is that no-one has explicitly come out and said "our movement is a movement towards a society where directly social associated labour replaces waged labour and the public power is dissolved into the social body and loses it's political character" or words to that effect.
I've only heard fragments of this kind of thoughts by them.


The Soviet Union claimed to have abolished "classes" yet one group still held power over another group within the process of social [re-]production.They don't claim that they did(very far from that). But you asked what their definition is, so that's one of its parts.


What exactly is meant by "social property"?Property of means of production by workers with the aim of producing for the benefit of all/satisfaction of human neccessities.

I've seen some TV programs, some papers by groups ...etc., then again I don't live in Venezuela and can't tell how far reaching propagation of these ideas are in public consciousness (but I'd guess it's still low).

Also too explicit elaborations on these core concepts are probably already planning on how this would/should look like and such movements should be made by workers themselves...This Plan Guayana(with all its proposals) and also regular communes are initiated by workers and residents themselves.
I hope that this lack of elaboration are due to such hopes or maybe also because of caution. The steps taken are also gradual, statement by statement, plan by plan, law by law...etc. and they aren't all without opposition and obstacles, either.

[The Red Next Door]

Awesome.

[Zanthorus]

Obviously class struggle existed and has existed, and it's also clear that change has occurred as a result of these actions. However, none of them succeeded, when the orthodox Marxist argument tends to be that it is the only place where revolutions are supposed to occur.

Well "orthodox Marxism" was created by Karl Kautsky and solidified into orthodoxy via the second international so it tends to be fairly terrible ;)

However even the orthodox Marxists would note that industrialised countries are the primary place where socialist revolutions are supposed to occur. It is not impermissible for a capitalist revolution to occur in an feudal/semi-feudal society. It is also possible for pre-capitalist societies to bypass the capitalist stage of history entirely if there is already a socialist bloc in existence in the advanced industrial societies.


I have not read Bordiga's writings, but with respect, that sounds a bit chauvinist to me. What is the rural proletariat supposed to do when faced with repression and exploitation? Nothing? Does Marxism only have something to offer to people in urbanized, industrialized societies or is it more universal in it's approach to solving human problems?

I think this, again, is a problem with taking "socialism" to mean everything positive and every rejection of something as "socialist" as a total dismissal of that event. To be perfectly honest I have not actually read Bordiga on Russia myself :p I got my information from this article (http://home.earthlink.net/~lrgoldner/bordiga.html) by Loren Goldner. Of particular interest in the context of this discussion would be this passage:


To the theses of the French ultra-left group "Socialism or Barbarism" who denounced the regime, after 1945, as state capitalist, Bordiga replied with an article "Avanti Barbati!" ("Onward Barbarians!") that hailed the bourgeois revolutionary side of Stalinism as its sole real content.

It is entirely possible for Marxists to praise the modernising and revolutionising affects of regimes like the USSR or China without having to call them "socialist". If one of the fundamental theses of Marxism is that revolution will be led by the industrial proletariat then the more bourgeois regimes the better! Marx and Engels also criticised the "true socialists" of Germany at the time for putting all their weight behind the proletariat and denouncing the "immorality" of the bourgeoisie much to the delight of the Prussian feudal aristocracy who used it as proof that the workers were opposed to the installation of capitalism. Marx and Engels realised that the creation of a proper bourgeois regime would be a step forward for their party at the time even though immediately after it's implementation they would have to begin the struggle against capital.

[Robocommie]

Well "orthodox Marxism" was created by Karl Kautsky and solidified into orthodoxy via the second international so it tends to be fairly terrible ;)

However even the orthodox Marxists would note that industrialised countries are the primary place where socialist revolutions are supposed to occur. It is not impermissible for a capitalist revolution to occur in an feudal/semi-feudal society. It is also possible for pre-capitalist societies to bypass the capitalist stage of history entirely if there is already a socialist bloc in existence in the advanced industrial societies.

<snipping the rest>


Okay, that's actually fairly interesting. I tend to use a broader definition of socialism, not being a true Communist myself, but I think I have a much better understanding and appreciation of your position, even if I don't agree with it per se. Thanks for taking the time to explain.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Well "orthodox Marxism" was created by Karl Kautsky and solidified into orthodoxy via the second international so it tends to be fairly terrible ;)

However even the orthodox Marxists would note that industrialised countries are the primary place where socialist revolutions are supposed to occur. It is not impermissible for a capitalist revolution to occur in an feudal/semi-feudal society. It is also possible for pre-capitalist societies to bypass the capitalist stage of history entirely if there is already a socialist bloc in existence in the advanced industrial societies.

To you and Robocommie: Why oh why did Kautsky write a lot of positive stuff about a potential Russian revolution sidelining the bourgeoisie, from 1902 (The Slavs and Revolution) to just before November 1917 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/prospects-russian-revolution-t126942/index.html)?

[Robocommie]

To you and Robocommie: Why oh why did Kautsky write a lot of positive stuff about a potential Russian revolution sidelining the bourgeoisie, from 1902 (The Slavs and Revolution) to just before November 1917 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/prospects-russian-revolution-t126942/index.html) (http://www.revleft.com/vb/prospects-russian-revolution-t126942/index.html%29)?

Man don't ask me about fucking Kautsky, I don't know shit about Kautsky. And I'll admit it.

Well, that's not entirely true, I know he had a beard and wore glasses.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Forgive me my sarcasm, but I suppose my question was more directed at Zanthorus.

Regardless, there was a *lesser known* tradition going back to Marx's letters to Vera Zasulich about a Russian revolution sparking European revolution (http://www.kevin-anderson.com/wp-content/uploads/docs/anderson-article-marx-late-writings-russia-re-examined.pdf), and that said Russian revolution does *not* need the bourgeoisie. That tradition from Marx, as popularized by one Teodor Shanin, was further carried on by Kautsky at least until 1917.

[anticap]

I didn't read the whole thread, so maybe it was redeemed at some point and I missed it, but the little bit I did read demonstrated for me once again the fundamental confusion among certain Marxists (i.e., those who toss around slurs like "liberal" and "ultra-leftist"): mistaking progress for socialism.

I'm perfectly capable of rejecting, outright, the notion that, e.g., the USSR, the PRC, Cuba, Venezuela, etc., are/were socialist (in any sense of the word that might be recognizable to a class-conscious workers' movement), while simultaneously lauding them all as progressive and superior to free-market capitalism, despite whatever flaws they may have had, and no matter how egregious those may have been (since they will pale in comparison to even the most sympathetic assessment of capitalist atrocities). It troubles me that I seem to be so nearly alone in this ability.

I attribute this fundamental confusion, in most cases, to one or more of the following: 1) desperation to have something to hold up as an example of socialism to contrast with capitalism; 2) lack of understanding (or perhaps lapse of memory) of what socialism actually entails; 3) misuse of materialism, in apologetics for abuses of the working class (e.g., "material circumstances necessitated anti-worker policy X") by non-socialist regimes, which may have nevertheless been progressive and made laudable accomplishments benefiting that class.

Have I missed an alternative explanation? Why is it so difficult for some leftists to accept that socialism does not exist, and that it has not existed except for a few glorious but fleeting moments in history? Is it a scorecard thing? a pissing contest with capitalism? What is it that causes this blind spot? I'm genuinely curious, because I'm perfectly content to accept that we haven't even really begun yet. In fact I find that rather exciting, and I'm wondering why I seem to be one of the only leftists who does.

P.S. I like Chavez. Morales, too. They don't have to be perfect for me to support them. But socialism does have to exist for me to recognize it.

[Crusade]

I'm loving all this unprovoked Anarchist hate. Gives me a warm feeling.

[RebelDog]

What the anarchists are saying here is that our concept of self-management is clearly different from the marxists here. i would always be initialy sceptical of any claim of workers self-management in our current world. For anarchists workers self-management cannot exist without the destruction of state power. If workers are self-managing the economy then it says to me that workers are controlling their workplaces through producer councils which are the actual controlling, decision-making institutions along with consumer councils in deciding production and distribution. No hierarchy, no bosses, no directors, no police enforcing state rule. The absense of authoritarian, hierarchical decision making. Directors and presidents would not exist in a workers self-managed economy and its contradictory to suggest otherwise. No self-respecting anarchist is ever going to view the changes in Venezuela as 'workers self-management' and whether our view of this concept is regarded as utopian by others is irrelevant here. Its dangerous to call things something they are not. I can accept that things in Venezuela have improved for the population in general, but whether that is because of Chavez or in spite of him is another question. Sometimes governments that are appearing to gift change from above are actually acting as a buffer against greater demands against the ruling class by mass movements and the wider population.

[pranabjyoti]

It's shame that nobody in this thread is interested in research and development, which is the most important issue of workers management of industries.

[RebelDog]

It's shame that nobody in this thread is interested in research and development, which is the most important issue of workers management of industries.

I agree that it is a crucial aspect of workers self-management. there would be great scope in libertarian communism/self-managed society for dynamic progress in this field due to the free sharing of information and technology and participation by workers. It would benefit everyone to search better methods of production, faster greener transport etc, more efficient working methods etc.

[Robocommie]

It's shame that nobody in this thread is interested in research and development, which is the most important issue of workers management of industries.

Why? I would think the most important element is getting people what they need in a non-exploitative manner.

[Barry Lyndon]

I didn't read the whole thread, so maybe it was redeemed at some point and I missed it, but the little bit I did read demonstrated for me once again the fundamental confusion among certain Marxists (i.e., those who toss around slurs like "liberal" and "ultra-leftist"): mistaking progress for socialism.

I'm perfectly capable of rejecting, outright, the notion that, e.g., the USSR, the PRC, Cuba, Venezuela, etc., are/were socialist (in any sense of the word that might be recognizable to a class-conscious workers' movement), while simultaneously lauding them all as progressive and superior to free-market capitalism, despite whatever flaws they may have had, and no matter how egregious those may have been (since they will pale in comparison to even the most sympathetic assessment of capitalist atrocities). It troubles me that I seem to be so nearly alone in this ability.

I attribute this fundamental confusion, in most cases, to one or more of the following: 1) desperation to have something to hold up as an example of socialism to contrast with capitalism; 2) lack of understanding (or perhaps lapse of memory) of what socialism actually entails; 3) misuse of materialism, in apologetics for abuses of the working class (e.g., "material circumstances necessitated anti-worker policy X") by non-socialist regimes, which may have nevertheless been progressive and made laudable accomplishments benefiting that class.

Have I missed an alternative explanation? Why is it so difficult for some leftists to accept that socialism does not exist, and that it has not existed except for a few glorious but fleeting moments in history? Is it a scorecard thing? a pissing contest with capitalism? What is it that causes this blind spot? I'm genuinely curious, because I'm perfectly content to accept that we haven't even really begun yet. In fact I find that rather exciting, and I'm wondering why I seem to be one of the only leftists who does.

P.S. I like Chavez. Morales, too. They don't have to be perfect for me to support them. But socialism does have to exist for me to recognize it.

You have made one of the more sane and un-dogmatic posts on this thread. Thank you.

I guess I am a little loose with how I define 'socialist'. I know that no ideally socialist society exists, or ever really has existed. When I call a country socialist, I don't necessarily mean a fully formed socialist society but a country that is moving away from the capitalist economic structure and the private ownership of the means of production, as well as preparing the working class to run society, which is the communist ideal. If I were to be more accurate, I would probably refer to pre-Stalin Soviet Union, Maoist China, Cuba, and Venezuela as progressive rather then socialist countries.

The reason I use the term 'socialism' to describe such societies is like you say: to show something tangible and realistic to contrast with capitalist society, and to be something different from a utopian idealist. To me, its of little use when debating a capitalist to say that the alternative society you support has never existed and/or been a total failure wherever its been tried-isn't that conceding the entire argument to the other side? Maybe I'm getting something wrong here.

[RadioRaheem84]

I want to take this opportunity to ask, if the USSR, Cuba, NK and China were all minuscule in their atrocities in comparison to the capitalist nations, heck the US alone, then why do we sort of indirectly scoff at the notion that these nations were probably better than the Western Nations in many regards? At least in comparison to the third world. Has liberalism really rubbed off on a lot of socialists in the past half century? I mean I take the Michael Parenti position that doesn't quite applaud these nations but certainly doesn't demonize them to make them look like they're worse than their capitalist counter-parts. Is it pressure from living in liberal democracies and not wanting to look the least bit totalitarian? We may be free in the US, but the US represses other nations far worse than the USSR would've ever dreamed of in the days of Stalin. The brutality in Suharto's Indonesia alone made me never look at the US the same way again and do not even get me started on Vietnam!

Yet, we feel more comfortable with quickly denouncing these regimes as utterly vile, when we live in nations that have no qualms about using sweatshop labor and firebombing whole villages to keep them running.

I hate the irony of living in a "free" country and not being able to lucidly denounce it's monstrous foreign policy because of all the propaganda that had been emanated through the airwaves, and not being able to tell people that the USSR was really the lesser of two evils when it was pretty repressive internally.

[pranabjyoti]

Why? I would think the most important element is getting people what they need in a non-exploitative manner.
Just being non-exploitative isn't sufficient. That must be technologically advanced too. I myself prefer to be an exploited labor of highly advance and productive industry than a non-exploited small business or workshop holder. My income and life standard would be better in the first case than the second case.

[Barry Lyndon]

I want to take this opportunity to ask, if the USSR, Cuba, NK and China were all minuscule in their atrocities in comparison to the capitalist nations, heck the US alone, then why do we sort of indirectly scoff at the notion that these nations were probably better than the Western Nations in many regards? At least in comparison to the third world. Has liberalism really rubbed off on a lot of socialists in the past half century? I mean I take the Michael Parenti position that doesn't quite applaud these nations but certainly doesn't demonize them to make them look like they're worse than their capitalist counter-parts. Is it pressure from living in liberal democracies and not wanting to look the least bit totalitarian? We may be free in the US, but the US represses other nations far worse than the USSR would've ever dreamed of in the days of Stalin. The brutality in Suharto's Indonesia alone made me never look at the US the same way again and do not even get me started on Vietnam!

Yet, we feel more comfortable with quickly denouncing these regimes as utterly vile, when we live in nations that have no qualms about using sweatshop labor and firebombing whole villages to keep them running.

I hate the irony of living in a "free" country and not being able to lucidly denounce it's monstrous foreign policy because of all the propaganda that had been emanated through the airwaves, and not being able to tell people that the USSR was really the lesser of two evils when it was pretty repressive internally.

I think the main point that Parenti makes is that the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, and other Communist countries should be judged on their own terms and seen as societies just like any other, with their strengths and great accomplishments as well as their weaknesses and political injustices. It is the legacy of the Cold War that either you are the liberal who condemns these countries as Stalinist monstrosities with no redeeming qualities whatsoever, or your the hardline Stalinist for whom one or more of these countries is/was the great socialist motherland whose leaders could do no wrong.

Noam Chomsky, although he is an anarchist with whom I and Parenti have great differences in opinion with when it comes to Communist countries, has also irritated liberals to no end by pointing out that even if it was true that the Soviet Union was Satan incarnate and that "we" are better then "them", it is irrelevant. We are responsible for the crimes committed by our ruling class in our name. And if we really are a 'democracy' like the liberals continue to insist, albeit an imperfect one, then surely we have an even greater responsibility because we are theoretically better able to pressure our government into changing its policy then those living under a police state.

Personally, I see Stalinism as one of the great political evils of the 20th century, along with fascism, colonialism, and colonialism's bastard child neo-colonialism. The reason I am a Marxist, however, is because what still makes capitalist neo-colonialism even worse then the most deformed kind of Stalinism is that 'free-market' tyranny does not need gulags or firing squads to kill people by the millions(although it may use such methods at times). No, capitalist neo-colonialism merely needs to quietly function, the engines of commerce only need whirr in silence while millions of men, women, and children are condemned to slow painful deaths due to hunger, malnutrition, disease, alcoholism, drug abuse, overwork, exposure, and general misery due to the cold, impersonal logic of the profit margins of Wall Street. This is the human cost of Capital that Marxists and anarchists see, but liberals are blind to.

[RadioRaheem84]

No, capitalist neo-colonialism merely needs to quietly function, the engines of commerce only need whirr in silence while millions of men, women, and children are condemned to slow painful deaths due to hunger, malnutrition, disease, alcoholism, drug abuse, overwork, exposure, and general misery due to the cold, impersonal logic of the profit margins of Wall Street. This is the human cost of Capital that Marxists and anarchists see, but liberals are blind to


Most liberals see this as better than living under Stalinism and others see it as due to choices and still others see it as in need of reform to calm those "extreme" elements.

[Comrade Jack/LeftPolitiko]

If you advocate perpetually funding them, you're advocating the same line advocated by Lassalle with his "producer cooperatives with state aid" slogan. [Not that eminent domain and startup aid is bad, but perpetual aid like state credit can be.]

Furthermore, there have been "social" conditions attached to the aid, conditions which at least some coops can't meet. [emphasis, mine]

I'm not advocating "perpetually funding"anything. I'm saying that Chavez is a reformist. Are his reforms (like the co-op programs) living up to their goals? Not really.

But fine. If we want to call Chavez a revolutionary, as some people on this message board want to do, is his introduction of "workers' self-management" into Venezuela establishing new social relations that will lead to the overthrow of capitalism? Not in the least.

So it's either Chavez the mediocre, reformist social democrat or Chavez the poor excuse for a revolutionary. Either one isn't very appealing to me.

[RadioRaheem84]

So it's either Chavez the mediocre, reformist social democrat or Chavez the poor excuse for a revolutionary. Either one isn't very appealing to me.

Thank you for the ill informed set of choices you gave us.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

I don't have time for ultra-left whiners who will never lead a revolution themselves but seem to always know what everyone else is doing wrong. And if anyone makes any more comparisons of Chavez to Peron, which ultra-lefts obsessively do because it makes them sound like they know something about Latin American politics, they should be called out for the idiots they are because Peron never had workers management and control of the industries.

Jesus Christ, even I'm embarrassed for you reds.

[this is an invasion]

I have no interest in managing capitalism, which is what is happening in Venezuela.

If socialism is just continued capitalist socialization with different managers, then I'm against socialism.

[Comrade Jack/LeftPolitiko]

Thank you for the ill informed set of choices you gave us.

I didn't give you a "set of choices." I'm saying that Chavez isn't a revolutionary--he's a reformist. Are you arguing for reformism or are you saying that he is a revolutionary? Please enlighten us all on how he is a revolutionary (if that is what you are implying.)

Better yet, how are my "choices" "ill-informed?" You didn't even make a real argument. That's basically the equivalent of saying something like "your post stupid."

[The Vegan Marxist]

I didn't give you a "set of choices." I'm saying that Chavez isn't a revolutionary--he's a reformist. Are you arguing for reformism or are you saying that he is a revolutionary? Please enlighten us all on how he is a revolutionary (if that is what you are implying.)

Better yet, how are my "choices" "ill-informed?" You didn't even make a real argument. That's basically the equivalent of saying something like "your post stupid."

How in the hell is Chavez a reformist? He's not trying to keep capitalism alive through some regulations here & there. He's turning it upside down, piece by piece.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

How in the hell is Chavez a reformist? He's not trying to keep capitalism alive through some regulations here & there. He's turning it upside down, piece by piece.

Isn't that also a form of reformism?

[Zanthorus]

Isn't that also a form of reformism?

There's a distinction to be made between reformism and gradualism. The former seeks to merely improve the current system while the latter seeks to completely change the system albeit step by step.

[Comrade Jack/LeftPolitiko]

How in the hell is Chavez a reformist? He's not trying to keep capitalism alive through some regulations here & there. He's turning it upside down, piece by piece.

He's a social democrat. I view them as reformists. The idea that we can go "piece by piece," ie through reforms, to overthrow capitalism isn't revolutionary. Chavez is just another neo-populist with a personality cult.

[gorillafuck]

I don't have time for ultra-left whiners who will never lead a revolution themselves but seem to always know what everyone else is doing wrong.
Because you totally will.

Anyway, I don't get the hostility towards electing leaders of cooperatives. Any sort of group has a leader or a few leaders generally. I think that on the subject of "electing managers", what matters is if elected managers make all the decisions and act as bosses in capitalism would, or if they are more of an overseer/supervisor(s) and makes minor decisions that would be inconvenient for everybody to collectively make (and obviously, are always up for re-election).

This is a good reform here. The thing is, a lot of people seem to either have total faith in Chavez (people who will think anything that has a drop of red food coloring in it is socialist) or denounce anything and everything he does. He makes very good reforms a lot of the time and it's stupid to denounce that. The question is, if there was a workers revolution, not one of electing a politician, one of the workers making their own workers councils and workers power and creating a socialist society through revolution from below, where would he stand? If he would stand with it he's an ally, if he would stand against it he's an enemy.

[Wolf Larson]

Chavez cannot abolish private property. The US would invade either straight up or with Columbia. I'm an anarchist but I'm aware of the political situation. You cant go on implementing full socialism when the USA corporation has troops surrounding your nation. The capitalists in Venezuela still have much pull as well. Like here in the US they have the media. Chavez cant do much until the masses are ready to expropriate capitalist wealth.

[Barry Lyndon]

This is a good reform here. The thing is, a lot of people seem to either have total faith in Chavez (people who will think anything that has a drop of red food coloring in it is socialist) or denounce anything and everything he does. He makes very good reforms a lot of the time and it's stupid to denounce that. The question is, if there was a workers revolution, not one of electing a politician, one of the workers making their own workers councils and workers power and creating a socialist society through revolution from below, where would he stand? If he would stand with it he's an ally, if he would stand against it he's an enemy.

And if he does side with the workers, the ultra-lefts will denounce him, saying hes trying to hijack the revolution and use it for his own 'petty-bourgeois nationalist'' nefarious ends, that he's lying. Because the ultra-lefts analysis and world-view is created and sustained by lies, fed to them regularly by the CIA and State Department. They spend their days spreading lies, lies, and more damned reactionary lies about anything that threatens capitalism, and worm their way into 'left' forums spewing their bile.