No deal with the bourgeois chavez

[REDSOX]

Good news http://www.iol.co.za/news/world/chavez-pledges-radical-change-1.683353

[vyborg]

Unfortunately, this is not the first time Chavez turns left but to no avail....as soon as capitalism prevails in Venezuela, every good speach or measure by Chavez is only a punch in the face of a very strong enemy...that is, you get the enemy more and more annoyed but you do not knock him down

[fa2991]

At first I thought the title was calling Chavez "bourgeois."

[zimmerwald1915]

At first I thought the title was calling Chavez "bourgeois."
So did I...but then I saw the OP.

[KurtFF8]

From the article:

He started on Sunday by announcing the expropriation of land owned by the Venezuelan agricultural company Agroislena and vowing to hasten the nationalisation of land held by the British meat products company Vestey Foods Group.

Yet some will still come out and say things like "As long as he decides to allow the capitalist class to rule, the PSUV is worthless!" when in reality he has been trying to build the capacity to turn Venezuela into a socialist country, and seems to remain committed to that project.

[RadioRaheem84]

Exactly Kurt.:thumbup1:

[pranabjyoti]

I personally don't like the land to be distributed among small farmers in small plots. That will be a backward movement and decrease in productivity. Instead, a cooperative or collective farm will be a better option. With oil revenues in hand, it will be better to turn those into well mechanized farms, preferably collective.

[RED DAVE]

in reality he has been trying to build the capacity to turn Venezuela into a socialist country, and seems to remain committed to that project.This is about as unmarxist a process as I can imagine hiding under the banner of marxism.

"[T]rying to build the capacity to turn Veneuela into a socialist country." What does this have to do with the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism by the working class?

RED DAVE

[fa2991]

I personally don't like the land to be distributed among small farmers in small plots. That will be a backward movement and decrease in productivity. Instead, a cooperative or collective farm will be a better option. With oil revenues in hand, it will be better to turn those into well mechanized farms, preferably collective.

Splitting up land into small pieces is a commie program, too. They did it in Albania & Cuba.

[M-26-7]

At first I thought the title was calling Chavez "bourgeois."

Well, he is.

[fa2991]

Well, he is.

http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j155/chkoo/xb9yt0.gif

[pranabjyoti]

Splitting up land into small pieces is a commie program, too. They did it in Albania & Cuba.
I am curious to know how much that help in increasing the productivity.

[KurtFF8]

This is about as unmarxist a process as I can imagine hiding under the banner of marxism.

"[T]rying to build the capacity to turn Veneuela into a socialist country." What does this have to do with the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism by the working class?

RED DAVE

What does attempting to transform a country from a country based on the capitalist mode of production and turn it into a country based on a socialist mode of production (aka worker ownership/control of industry) have to do with the overthrow of capitalism? Seems like a tautology to me

And how is it "unmarxist" to try to combat capitalism?

[fa2991]

I am curious to know how much that help in increasing the productivity.

A helluva lot, according to Hoxha & co., but you decide how much stock you want to put into what the government said about its own programs. There is, at least, no evidence I know of that contradicts that claim.

[AK]

Yet some will still come out and say things like "As long as he decides to allow the capitalist class to rule, the PSUV is worthless!" when in reality he has been trying to build the capacity to turn Venezuela into a socialist country, and seems to remain committed to that project.
A one-man show, eh? And here I was thinking the revolution would be a working-class action.

http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j155/chkoo/xb9yt0.gif
So are you going to deny that Chavez is the head of a Bourgeois state (and being the head of a Bourgeois state, there are obviously times when he does participate in managing the class interests of the Bourgeoisie)? That's really quite stupid of you.

[pranabjyoti]

A helluva lot, according to Hoxha & co., but you decide how much stock you want to put into what the government said about its own programs. There is, at least, no evidence I know of that contradicts that claim.
It's an age-old Marxian problem. It has been repeatedly shown that farmers with small plots of land rarely holds the capital, education and expertise to increase productivity and as application of machinery is extremely limited in small plots, it's very very hard to achieve proper productivity with that. To achieve proper productivity, big plots of land along with machinery is necessary and that's why the collectivization programme had been launched in the USSR during the 30's and history had clearly proved that it's very much successful. Lenin in one of his books, clearly mentioned that if a certainly amount of land has been accumulated and farmed collectively, it only needs 3 bullocks instead of 10 even without modern machinery.

[Rakhmetov]

Looks like Chavez is heeding the advice of Alan Woods and the Venezuelan workers, eh?

[KurtFF8]

A one-man show, eh? And here I was thinking the revolution would be a working-class action.

Right because me, Chavez, the PSUV, the grassroots activism that supports it, etc. all claim that we should just put our faith in the one man. We ignore fact like Chavez has increased worker ownership (yes self management) over many industries, increased worker coops, and represents the interests of the working class over the bourgeois more than just about any other president that I can think of (take perhaps Castro)

Some good starting point articles from UpsideDownWorld:
184 Communes Currently in Formation in Venezuela (http://upsidedownworld.org/main/venezuela-archives-35/2355-184-communes-currently-in-formation-in-venezuela)
Venezuelans Experiment With Participatory Democracy (http://upsidedownworld.org/main/venezuela-archives-35/2638-venezuelans-experiment-with-participatory-democracy)


So are you going to deny that Chavez is the head of a Bourgeois state (and being the head of a Bourgeois state, there are obviously times when he does participate in managing the class interests of the Bourgeoisie)? That's really quite stupid of you.

Did I deny this? He was also elected head of the Venezuelan state to transform the country into a socialist country, are you going to deny that?

Is that a controversial thing for a Left-winger to do? Yes
Will it work at the end of the day? We shall see.

It certainly has helped the worse off of the country, no denying that I would hope (http://www.cepr.net/index.php/press-releases/press-releases/report-examines-economy-and-social-indicators-during-the-chavez-decade-in-venezuela/). And I would argue that the things he's done (like expropriations, helping build working class power by giving them the tools to express that power, while the previous governments would never have dreamed of doing that) do give an increased opportunity for there to be socialism in Venezuela more so than countries in Latin America that don't have a PSUV government.

[fa2991]

So are you going to deny that Chavez is the head of a Bourgeois state (and being the head of a Bourgeois state, there are obviously times when he does participate in managing the class interests of the Bourgeoisie)? That's really quite stupid of you.

:rolleyes: And was Allende, too? Chavez is trying to change the class nature of the state.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Seems like positive rhetoric and moves to nationalise, to me.

[el_chavista]

In those frequent derogatory exclamations against the bourgeoisie (I'd say he is a sort of a "speech" tank blaming on the bourgeoisie :lol:) Chávez hides his delusions of not counting on a "national" bourgeoisie to help him in the economic development of Venezuela ("they have a strike of inversions").

So inflation and unemployment could lead to a tiny difference in votes on the 2012 presidential election, which in turn will carry out another directly confrontation like in 2002-2003. We hope this new revolutionary situation may be decisive for the Bolivarian revolution overthrowing the bourgeoisie, at last.

[AK]

:rolleyes: And was Allende, too? Chavez is trying to change the class nature of the state.
Working class revolution is not a one man show...

[KurtFF8]

Working class revolution is not a one man show...

And Chavez isn't the only member of the PSUV

[AK]

And Chavez isn't the only member of the PSUV
fa2991's post only mentioned Chavez.

Whether it's one man or the upper cadres of the PSUV, fuck them all.

[fa2991]

fa2991's post only mentioned Chavez.

Whether it's one man or the upper cadres of the PSUV, fuck them all.

You're like Emma Goldman in that movie "Reds," unable to concede that there's anything good about Eugene Debs' campaign. :p

[REDSOX]

I think chavez is doing the right thing by nationalising more and more and speeding up land reform. The correct response to the election result is not to listen to those on the PSUV right wing and slow the process down and conciliate with the bourgeois, that will demoralise the working class base and embolden the oligarchical right. The solution is to go further to the left and deal with corruption bureacracy in a revolutionary way.

[RadioRaheem84]

fa2991's post only mentioned Chavez.

Whether it's one man or the upper cadres of the PSUV, fuck them all.

The base of the PSUV is working very hard to do away with the soc dems in the Party and is pressuring Chavez to move the direction further toward full socialism.

[KurtFF8]

The base of the PSUV is working very hard to do away with the soc dems in the Party and is pressuring Chavez to move the direction further toward full socialism.

But they're in a Party so they must have somehow left the working class and joined the bureaucracy

[Kiev Communard]

So inflation and unemployment could lead to a tiny difference in votes on the 2012 presidential election, which in turn will carry out another directly confrontation like in 2002-2003. We hope this new revolutionary situation may be decisive for the Bolivarian revolution overthrowing the bourgeoisie, at last.

This situation can turn very risky if it indeed happens as you believe, but what are the guarantees Chavez will be willing to break with the bourgeois class rule?

[Patchd]

Splitting up land into small pieces is a commie program, too. They did it in Albania & Cuba.
Oh, Albania and Cuba did it!? Right, that's cool then guys, Albania and Cuba did it, it must be commie :thumbup1:

... and Allende? He suppressed the very militias which saved him in the attempted coup prior to the one which brought his downfall. Took weapons away from them, and formed government-controlled peasant official unions in place of the organic ones, and in the cities they split off to form their own factory councils because the state's ones were far too bureaucratic and inefficient at producing results. That socialist Allende?

Hello again revleft.

[RedTrackWorker]

:rolleyes: And was Allende, too? Chavez is trying to change the class nature of the state.

Patchd is right. Allende appointed Pinochet to his position. He passed a gun control law that was used to disarm workers preparing to resist the coup everyone knew was coming. But because he said the word "socialist" some on the left still want to love him. Just as with Chavez now, they attribute to Allende both the gains the workers' were winning anyway and Allende was legalizing to try to hold back the struggle as well as the reforms Allende put in place on his own initiative in order to tie the workers to the system (in his first year, the capitalist-controlled Congress passed on almost all his measures because they understood this need--yet so-called leftists offer these reforms up as proof of Allende's "socialism"). In 72, when the bosses tried a counterattack, the workers revolted and took over many factories--which Allende forced them to return to their owners and then appointed three generals to cabinet posts (i.e. the top executive positions in his government) to maintain "order and peace". Allende said:
“There will be no armed forces here other than those stipulated by the constitution.... I shall eliminate any others if they appear." This was the army that lead the coup. Allende said he would remove any other armed forces and appointed army leaders to top posts in his government. But he kept saying the word "socialist" and that's enough for some leftists.
Then in 73, there was a coup attempt in June. Workers again took over hundreds of factories and massively organized. (The military chiefs helped suppress the coup since they had a much, much more well-planned one in the works.) So Allende creates a "national security" cabinet composed completely of military generals--including Pinochet and the repression and disarming of workers and peasants intensifies.
As the troops moved in September to dispose him, Allende said on the radio:
"I wait for the soldiers of Chile to respond positively and defend the laws and the Constitution. Workers must go to their workplace and wait for new instructions." In other words, "Workers! Sit down, shut up, and oh yeah: socialism." And on such cheap words leftists support him!

This LRP article, among others, details various ways Chavez's regime betrays the workers' interests:
http://lrp-cofi.org/PR/venezuela81.html


Yet some will still come out and say things like "As long as he decides to allow the capitalist class to rule, the PSUV is worthless!" when in reality he has been trying to build the capacity to turn Venezuela into a socialist country, and seems to remain committed to that project.

My questions to you are:
What does it take for you to support a politician? He has to say "socialism" how many times? How is Chavez governing fundamentally different than how Allende did? How can a revolutionary party be built that can lead the workers to power if it lets itself be detoured by bourgeois politicians saying "socialism" and making some nice reforms?

[pranabjyoti]

So far, as far as I know, Chavez has created an armed public militia just opposite to Allende. A coup had been tried to overthrow him 2002, but that had failed miserably and then strike in the oil sector, while ultimately strengthen his hands. So, how Chavez can be compared with Allende? At least, there actions are often quite opposite regarding arming of common people. I hope none forgot the ordering of 100,000 AK arms from Russia, on which US expressed its grave concern (rightly from imperialist viewpoint).

[Patchd]

No two individuals will have acted in the same light in every situation. Chavez is a social-democrat of the Latin American tradition in our era, Allende, that of the 1970s. So we are not saying that Allende is exactly like Chavez. Chavez's creation of peasant militias means nothing in terms of his socialist credentials though. Merely because he's stated as his intention that the creation of these militias should be used to protect poor peasants and agricultural workers from right wing mercenaries hired by wealthy ranchers and businessmen does not remove the fact that he's also agglomerated the militias into the state's armed forces. In the south of Thailand, the government has issued a number of rifles and military training to civilians for self defence against Islamic insurgents. Merely because workers and peasants have been armed does not mean it is a socialist act.

At this time when Venezuela is facing increasing antagonism from Colombia, as well as other Western imperialists, it shouldn't come as a surprise if the state decides to arm its population. It's happened in the past before in other capitalist states (like Venezuela). Don't have any illusions that Chavez won't actually requisition those weapons when the threat posed from them being in the hands of workers and peasants becomes greater than the usefulness of having an armed populace in a potentially critical time.

[RedTrackWorker]

So far, as far as I know, Chavez has created an armed public militia just opposite to Allende. A coup had been tried to overthrow him 2002, but that had failed miserably and then strike in the oil sector, while ultimately strengthen his hands. So, how Chavez can be compared with Allende? At least, there actions are often quite opposite regarding arming of common people. I hope none forgot the ordering of 100,000 AK arms from Russia, on which US expressed its grave concern (rightly from imperialist viewpoint).

The U.S. military wasn't really concerned, it was more media noise. Why would they be concerned? If Chavez had bought the latest surface-to-air missiles, that could concern the U.S., which relies on air dominance. Plus get some antitank weapons and mines.
He bought fighter planes, helicopters and...AK's. I think everyone should know that fighter pilots are the "aristocracy" of the army. They're useful for creating a stable core within the army you can rely on against popular uprisings and such. Against the U.S. though? I firmly believe in the power of the workers to overthrow imperialism, but it won't be by dog fights with the U.S. airforce! But since most of the airforce was trained by the U.S., Chavez might be hoping to win the loyalty of some of them with this new hardware.
If you want a strong popular militia to defend against invasion and the possibility of a coup from the country's own army, you'd give them: tanks, anti-air missiles, RPG's and yeah, AK's too. But just AK's? It means you want to create a loyal following but you don't want to give "the people" too much military hardware they can use.
Or maybe he knew that for some leftists he had to do more than say the word "socialism," he also needed to hand out a few guns that won't really help anybody and he'd have loyal defenders the world over backing his regime!

[pranabjyoti]

He bought fighter planes, helicopters and...AK's. I think everyone should know that fighter pilots are the "aristocracy" of the army. They're useful for creating a stable core within the army you can rely on against popular uprisings and such. Against the U.S. though? I firmly believe in the power of the workers to overthrow imperialism, but it won't be by dog fights with the U.S. airforce! But since most of the airforce was trained by the U.S., Chavez might be hoping to win the loyalty of some of them with this new hardware.
Well, so far I have seen very little example of use of fighter planes against popular uprisings. Gunship Helicopters are better in this matter. Well, socialism may not be achieved by dogfight with US fighters, but at least they can resist a level of imperialist military attack. Bombers are better for invasion within and outside your country, in my opinion. I don't think that being trained in US is equivalent to brainwashed by capitalism.

If you want a strong popular militia to defend against invasion and the possibility of a coup from the country's own army, you'd give them: tanks, anti-air missiles, RPG's and yeah, AK's too. But just AK's? It means you want to create a loyal following but you don't want to give "the people" too much military hardware they can use.
Or maybe he knew that for some leftists he had to do more than say the word "socialism," he also needed to hand out a few guns that won't really help anybody and he'd have loyal defenders the world over backing his regime!
How many common people are capable of handling tanks, anti-air missiles, RPG's? In case of an army coup, which had already happened in 2002, do you think all the soldiers will obey the army officers cdmmands?

[4 Leaf Clover]

Well, he is.


Chávez was born in a mud hut near Sabaneta. Due to the Chávez family's impoverished conditions, Hugo Chávez was sent to Sabaneta with his older brother Adán (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad%C3%A1n_Ch%C3%A1vez) to live with his paternal grandmother, Rosa Inés Chávez, where he pursued hobbies such as painting, singing, and baseball while attending elementary school at the Julián Pino School. He was later forced to relocate to the town of Barinas to attend high school at the Daniel Florencio O'Leary School.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_chavez#cite_note-GovtVen-8)

real bourgeoisie lifestyle

[Reznov]

As for the programs that were set-up in Albania and Cuba, anyone know the name for them?

[RedTrackWorker]

real bourgeoisie lifestyle

Childhood circumstances do not determine an adult's class status. Chavez was a high-ranking military officer, i.e. a bourgeois class position.

In resonse to pranabjyoti, what could Chavez possibly do, other than say "I am not a socialist", to convince you that he is not a socialist?

[pranabjyoti]

Childhood circumstances do not determine an adult's class status. Chavez was a high-ranking military officer, i.e. a bourgeois class position.

In resonse to pranabjyoti, what could Chavez possibly do, other than say "I am not a socialist", to convince you that he is not a socialist?
A military officer isn't a bourgeoisie, he may be a part of bureaucracy. I just want to know that what he has done to prove that "he is not a socialist"? After all, he reduced the daily working hours from 8 to 6? I haven't seen any bourgeoisie or imperialist backed ruler to do that. The rulers of Iran and Syria, who are anti-US haven't done anything in this regard.

[RedTrackWorker]

A military officer isn't a bourgeoisie, he may be a part of bureaucracy. I just want to know that what he has done to prove that "he is not a socialist"? After all, he reduced the daily working hours from 8 to 6? I haven't seen any bourgeoisie or imperialist backed ruler to do that. The rulers of Iran and Syria, who are anti-US haven't done anything in this regard.

I linked to some articles above.

[Queercommie Girl]

Chavez is not a revolutionary socialist and Venezuela is technically still a capitalist country. Chavez is not another Lenin or even Mao.

However, Chavez is a genuine left reformist and that makes him relatively progressive. Since I'm partly influenced by Kautskyite centrism I do not in principle rule out the possibility of socialism being brought about through reformist means, like what Chavez is doing now. But frankly the danger of counter-revolution is very high and ever-present in Venezuela, as long as the back of the capitalists is not broken by an actual revolution.

So while I do not label Chavez as a cynical hypocrite and I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt on many issues, objectively the situation in Venezuela is not optimistic at all and is in fact very worrying. Chavez might be subjectively genuine, but objectively he could still be wrong.

[L.A.P.]

This is about as unmarxist a process as I can imagine hiding under the banner of marxism.

"[T]rying to build the capacity to turn Veneuela into a socialist country." What does this have to do with the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism by the working class?

RED DAVE

You do realize Hugo Chavez is not a Marxist, right? He's just a socialist and nothing else.

[Obs]

You do realize Hugo Chavez is not a Marxist, right? He's just a socialist and nothing else.
I think you just dropped a cigarette in an Australian forest. You know. Just an FYI.

[S.Artesian]

From the article:


Yet some will still come out and say things like "As long as he decides to allow the capitalist class to rule, the PSUV is worthless!" when in reality he has been trying to build the capacity to turn Venezuela into a socialist country, and seems to remain committed to that project.

And good luck with that... except all experience in these matters prior to this date indicates that such attempts at building capacity without first expropriating the bourgeoisie as a class fail. And fail bloodily.

That's the real issue. The economy is under great stress. Piecemeal nationalizations have not relieved the stress, and if deflation of the price of oil reappears, there won't be any space left to maneuver between the rock of inflation and hard places of economic contraction.

Chavez's support is going to erode, the longer this keeps up. It will erode among the military officers. It will erode among the "neutral" "undecided" factions, and it will erode in the barrios, with the urban and rural poor.

It's happened before. And because capitalism hasn't changed, there is no reason to think Chavez will be any more successful than a Peron, an Allende, a Goulart, a Villaroel.

[S.Artesian]

Well, so far I have seen very little example of use of fighter planes against popular uprisings. Gunship Helicopters are better in this matter. Well, socialism may not be achieved by dogfight with US fighters, but at least they can resist a level of imperialist military attack. Bombers are better for invasion within and outside your country, in my opinion. I don't think that being trained in US is equivalent to brainwashed by capitalism.

How many common people are capable of handling tanks, anti-air missiles, RPG's? In case of an army coup, which had already happened in 2002, do you think all the soldiers will obey the army officers cdmmands?

Shows how little you know. Dealing with invasions means dealing with ground combat, and ground combat means your ground forces engage the enemy's ground forces. The air cover you want is close air tactical support, not strategic bombing, unless you want to destroy the entire country, which is what the US tried in Vietnam and almost worked -- certainly worked at Khe Sanh.

But somehow, I don't think that's what Chavez has in mind for his own country.

No, being trained in the US is not equivalent to being brainwashed, but brainwashing isn't required. An officer corps is an officer corps. Air force pilots are commissioned officers. They are not rank and file grunts.

As for "ordinary people" learning how to use RPGs, SAMs,-- believe me, it's not that hard, as long as you have some people who are familiar with the assembly, targeting and operation. How the heck do you think the 11 year olds kidnapped to fight in the civil wars in Africa learned?

Bottom line is.. it's class, and it's the economy. If Chavez can't stop the decay in the economy, if the economy cannot produce enough electricity to satisfy the needs of the economy and the populace... then his support will disappear-- among all sectors.

[L.A.P.]

I think you just dropped a cigarette in an Australian forest. You know. Just an FYI.

What do you mean by that?:confused:

[Obs]

What do you mean by that?:confused:
I mean you gon' get flamed, boy.

[L.A.P.]

I mean you gon' get flamed, boy.

Oh shit.:scared:

[KurtFF8]

And good luck with that... except all experience in these matters prior to this date indicates that such attempts at building capacity without first expropriating the bourgeoisie as a class fail. And fail bloodily.

That's the real issue. The economy is under great stress. Piecemeal nationalizations have not relieved the stress, and if deflation of the price of oil reappears, there won't be any space left to maneuver between the rock of inflation and hard places of economic contraction.

Chavez's support is going to erode, the longer this keeps up. It will erode among the military officers. It will erode among the "neutral" "undecided" factions, and it will erode in the barrios, with the urban and rural poor.

It's happened before. And because capitalism hasn't changed, there is no reason to think Chavez will be any more successful than a Peron, an Allende, a Goulart, a Villaroel.

Quick reply due to time constraint right now:
What exactly do you mean "without expropriating the bourgeoise"? Chavez has nationalized (aka seized from the capitalist class) many firms and factories, and the original article posted here talks exactly about that.

He's aide the construction of worker coops (non capitalist), socialist communes, and has mass support.

He is a bit constrained, as is the nature of deciding to win an election in a capitalist nation as a socialist, absolutely.

But I feel that there's much fetishism of some "Event" like the Bolshevik revolution that is indeed lacking in Venezeula right now. But that sort of political Event isn't some magical missing point in a formula for Chavez, I'm sure he's heard of the Bolshevik revolution too, and he (and I'm sure many in the PSUV) are quite read on their Communist history.

[Queercommie Girl]

But I feel that there's much fetishism of some "Event" like the Bolshevik revolution that is indeed lacking in Venezeula right now. But that sort of political Event isn't some magical missing point in a formula for Chavez, I'm sure he's heard of the Bolshevik revolution too, and he (and I'm sure many in the PSUV) are quite read on their Communist history.


It's not a fetish for some "event", it's the dialectical difference between quantitative and qualitative change.

In Venezuela the qualitative change has not yet occurred, just as in China today it has not really occurred in the other direction.

[KurtFF8]

It's not a fetish for some "event", it's the dialectical difference between quantitative and qualitative change.

In Venezuela the qualitative change has not yet occurred, just as in China today it has not really occurred in the other direction.

Fair enough. And I'm not here to uncritically defend Chavez and the PSUV. They could certainly do better. But all of this talk of "well they aren't doing enough to expropriate the capitalist class!" while at the same time nationalization continues to increase in various sectors of the economy seems to not be a valid criticism.

[S.Artesian]

Quick reply due to time constraint right now:
What exactly do you mean "without expropriating the bourgeoise"? Chavez has nationalized (aka seized from the capitalist class) many firms and factories, and the original article posted here talks exactly about that.

He's aide the construction of worker coops (non capitalist), socialist communes, and has mass support.

He is a bit constrained, as is the nature of deciding to win an election in a capitalist nation as a socialist, absolutely.

But I feel that there's much fetishism of some "Event" like the Bolshevik revolution that is indeed lacking in Venezeula right now. But that sort of political Event isn't some magical missing point in a formula for Chavez, I'm sure he's heard of the Bolshevik revolution too, and he (and I'm sure many in the PSUV) are quite read on their Communist history.

Expropriation is a social process, much more comprehensive than nationalization. Expropriation means seizing all the means of production of the bourgeoisie; of expropriating the banks, and the bourgeoisie's personal accumulations of wealth.

It includes breaking the political institutions of the bourgeoisie also-- in this case, the Catholic Church-- seizing its property and its bank accounts.

[KurtFF8]

Expropriation is a social process, much more comprehensive than nationalization. Expropriation means seizing all the means of production of the bourgeoisie; of expropriating the banks, and the bourgeoisie's personal accumulations of wealth.

It includes breaking the political institutions of the bourgeoisie also-- in this case, the Catholic Church-- seizing its property and its bank accounts.

Indeed, I think we can all agree that nationalization isn't the same thing as full expropriation. But also: no one is arguing that the only thing that the Chavez/PSUV government is doing are nationalizations.

[S.Artesian]

Indeed, I think we can all agree that nationalization isn't the same thing as full expropriation. But also: no one is arguing that the only thing that the Chavez/PSUV government is doing are nationalizations.

OK, I'm not saying that's all they are doing. I am saying if you don't do expropriations, and you don't do it quickly, and massively, and resolutely, you are going to be, you should pardon the vulgarity, fucked.

I highly recommend the book: Allende's Chile: The Political Economy of the Rise and Fall of the Unidad Popular, which really examines this in greater detail.

[KurtFF8]

OK, I'm not saying that's all they are doing. I am saying if you don't do expropriations, and you don't do it quickly, and massively, and resolutely, you are going to be, you should pardon the vulgarity, fucked.

I highly recommend the book: Allende's Chile: The Political Economy of the Rise and Fall of the Unidad Popular, which really examines this in greater detail.

I agree that the pace of Venezuela's "transformation" could be picked up a bit. But to paint the picture as they're dragging their feet or not doing anything to me is just not true. And the parallel between Allende and Chavez is an important lesson (hopefully one that Chavez is trying to learn from).

I'll have to pick up that book some time.

[KC]

I'm somewhat disappointed in the fact that most discussion regarding Venezuela revolves around Chavez, his personality, his beliefs, his actions, etc...

Social movements are bigger than one person, even if that person is a crucial cog in the machine. The answer to the question of what Chavez is and what he represents is answered only by studying the movement as a whole, not by looking to him for answers.

[KurtFF8]

I'm somewhat disappointed in the fact that most discussion regarding Venezuela revolves around Chavez, his personality, his beliefs, his actions, etc...

Social movements are bigger than one person, even if that person is a crucial cog in the machine. The answer to the question of what Chavez is and what he represents is answered only by studying the movement as a whole, not by looking to him for answers.

This is why I've been trying to write "Chavez and the PSUV" as much as possible in my posts in this thread

[S.Artesian]

I agree that the pace of Venezuela's "transformation" could be picked up a bit. But to paint the picture as they're dragging their feet or not doing anything to me is just not true. And the parallel between Allende and Chavez is an important lesson (hopefully one that Chavez is trying to learn from).

I'll have to pick up that book some time.

I didn't say they are "dragging their feet or not doing anything." I think what they are doing is incapable of defeating the bourgeoisie.

The book is an excellent read.

[RedTrackWorker]

Chavez has nationalized (aka seized from the capitalist class) many firms and factories, and the original article posted here talks exactly about that.

He's aide the construction of worker coops (non capitalist), socialist communes, and has mass support.

He is a bit constrained, as is the nature of deciding to win an election in a capitalist nation as a socialist, absolutely.

My question still remains:
What makes him "socialist" other than what he says?
Nationalization itself is not an anti-capitalist act. Nations like Britain and Taiwan, which everyone on the far left considers capitalist, have, for instance, had extremely extensive nationalization at various times.
Workers' co-ops--especially when consigned to failing enterprises as a means of maintaining social stability--are not inherently anti-capitalist.
Mass support definitely tells one little about the politics of a leader.

I assume you would grant that capitalist politicians can grant reforms--even far reaching one (like healthcare for all).
I assume you would grant that capitalist politicians can talk out of both sides of their mouth and even use the word "socialist" if that's what it takes to maintain the social stability needed for capitalist rule.
I assume you would grant that there can be intense and even violent struggles between different sections of the capitalists--some of which may appear left-wing or right-wing but in essence are anti-working class.

So what is your evidence that Chavez is a genuine socialist, even if imperfect?

Since you could ask me, "Well, what in your opinion would constitute positive evidence someone is a genuine socialist leader?", I'll attempt an answer.
The workers must emancipate themselves. They can only do so by destroying the capitalist state and building their own. Their only weapon is their organization. The capitalists have all sorts of power bases deriving from their economic position. The capitalists will not give any of this up to the workers without a fight--though some sections will give concessions to head off a fight and some capitalists will even force other capitalists to grant concessions to head off a fight.
To overcome the capitalists and for the workers to use their organization to be victorious, they must be armed--literally but first of all politically. That political arming is expressed most of all in the revolutionary party. A party which must tell the truth about what it means and what it will take to achieve victory.
The essence of that policy is the political independence of the workers from the capitalists and capitalist institutions.
The policy of Chavez and the PSUV is subordination--or collaboration if you prefer--of the workers with the state. To say Venezuela is not a capitalist state is to say the capitalists--with all their power--gave up their state without a significant fight and that the class basis of the state was changed without a significant change in personnel. To me, this would be a complete revision of Marxist theory.
Two examples of Chavez and the PSUV being for the political subordination of the workers to the capitalist state:
1) The oil company--controlled by the Chavez government--refused to negotiate with the unions that the workers had built in struggle and bargained with a union which it itself created. When workers protested this, state police forces attacked them. A well-known union militant and socialist was fired by the company. When a government moves to remove worker-controlled unions ( and replace them with state-controlled unions, that is an anti-working class attack (http://www.lrp-cofi.org/statements/solidarity_ochirino.html) You may ask, "How do I know Chavez and the PSUV approve this specific policy?" I would say to you, "The point is not whether they approve the policy in general--which there is evidence for if you want to look for it--but judging Chavez and his party politically: 1) By taking the position of head of government, Chavez takes responsibility for the actions of the government, and 2) Chavez and the PSUV by not condemning such actions, they are clearly not advocating a socialist/pro-working class policy of the most elementary kind." (I would argue that actually assert such actions but am putting forward the "weak argument" here rather than the "strong argument" for discussion purposes.)
2) The 2008 referendum Chavez proposed would've given the state new legal means of repression. Do I really need to say more on the political significance of this? (http://www.lrp-cofi.org/PR/venezuela81.html -- which also explains in brief the true nature of those "communal councils")

Another historical example: Catalonia in Spain in 1936 saw the most far reaching workers' revolutionary uprising in history. The workers were in very many important aspects the rulers of society--from the factories to the militias to checking passports. In a sense, all they had not done was said, "We are in charge now." The workers' leaders joined in government with "shadows of the bourgeoisie"--but some said, this does not matter, the workers were in control on the ground and the leaders use the word "socialism". Yet these "shadows" were able to redevelop the remnants of the capitalist state bureaucracy and begin removing the workers' control of society. They could only do so by yelling "socialism! socialism! socialism!" and "revolution! revolution! revolution!". What was required was the centralization of the various workers' committees and their declaration of power: that "we rule now" and sweeping away the last remnants of the state bureaucracy (in 36, by late 36/early 37 the situation's more complicated). A figure like Chavez exists to head this off. Further, did not at this same time, the Popular Front government of France grants reforms to the workers and bandy about the word "socialism" while in essence holding the workers back from power in the name of democracy and national defense? What is it about Chavez and the PSUV that workers should unite with? Note: I say "unite" with, not "defend"--because obviously it is of the utmost and extreme duty of the workers to defend them from imperialism, but that duty falls on workers in regards to figures that you definitely don't politically support as well.

[Queercommie Girl]

My question still remains:
What makes him "socialist" other than what he says?
Nationalization itself is not an anti-capitalist act. Nations like Britain and Taiwan, which everyone on the far left considers capitalist, have, for instance, had extremely extensive nationalization at various times.
Workers' co-ops--especially when consigned to failing enterprises as a means of maintaining social stability--are not inherently anti-capitalist.
Mass support definitely tells one little about the politics of a leader.

I assume you would grant that capitalist politicians can grant reforms--even far reaching one (like healthcare for all).
I assume you would grant that capitalist politicians can talk out of both sides of their mouth and even use the word "socialist" if that's what it takes to maintain the social stability needed for capitalist rule.
I assume you would grant that there can be intense and even violent struggles between different sections of the capitalists--some of which may appear left-wing or right-wing but in essence are anti-working class.

So what is your evidence that Chavez is a genuine socialist, even if imperfect?

Since you could ask me, "Well, what in your opinion would constitute positive evidence someone is a genuine socialist leader?", I'll attempt an answer.
The workers must emancipate themselves. They can only do so by destroying the capitalist state and building their own. Their only weapon is their organization. The capitalists have all sorts of power bases deriving from their economic position. The capitalists will not give any of this up to the workers without a fight--though some sections will give concessions to head off a fight and some capitalists will even force other capitalists to grant concessions to head off a fight.
To overcome the capitalists and for the workers to use their organization to be victorious, they must be armed--literally but first of all politically. That political arming is expressed most of all in the revolutionary party. A party which must tell the truth about what it means and what it will take to achieve victory.
The essence of that policy is the political independence of the workers from the capitalists and capitalist institutions.
The policy of Chavez and the PSUV is subordination--or collaboration if you prefer--of the workers with the state. To say Venezuela is not a capitalist state is to say the capitalists--with all their power--gave up their state without a significant fight and that the class basis of the state was changed without a significant change in personnel. To me, this would be a complete revision of Marxist theory.
Two examples of Chavez and the PSUV being for the political subordination of the workers to the capitalist state:
1) The oil company--controlled by the Chavez government--refused to negotiate with the unions that the workers had built in struggle and bargained with a union which it itself created. When workers protested this, state police forces attacked them. A well-known union militant and socialist was fired by the company. When a government moves to remove worker-controlled unions ( and replace them with state-controlled unions, that is an anti-working class attack (http://www.lrp-cofi.org/statements/solidarity_ochirino.html) You may ask, "How do I know Chavez and the PSUV approve this specific policy?" I would say to you, "The point is not whether they approve the policy in general--which there is evidence for if you want to look for it--but judging Chavez and his party politically: 1) By taking the position of head of government, Chavez takes responsibility for the actions of the government, and 2) Chavez and the PSUV by not condemning such actions, they are clearly not advocating a socialist/pro-working class policy of the most elementary kind." (I would argue that actually assert such actions but am putting forward the "weak argument" here rather than the "strong argument" for discussion purposes.)
2) The 2008 referendum Chavez proposed would've given the state new legal means of repression. Do I really need to say more on the political significance of this? (http://www.lrp-cofi.org/PR/venezuela81.html -- which also explains in brief the true nature of those "communal councils")

Another historical example: Catalonia in Spain in 1936 saw the most far reaching workers' revolutionary uprising in history. The workers were in very many important aspects the rulers of society--from the factories to the militias to checking passports. In a sense, all they had not done was said, "We are in charge now." The workers' leaders joined in government with "shadows of the bourgeoisie"--but some said, this does not matter, the workers were in control on the ground and the leaders use the word "socialism". Yet these "shadows" were able to redevelop the remnants of the capitalist state bureaucracy and begin removing the workers' control of society. They could only do so by yelling "socialism! socialism! socialism!" and "revolution! revolution! revolution!". What was required was the centralization of the various workers' committees and their declaration of power: that "we rule now" and sweeping away the last remnants of the state bureaucracy (in 36, by late 36/early 37 the situation's more complicated). A figure like Chavez exists to head this off. Further, did not at this same time, the Popular Front government of France grants reforms to the workers and bandy about the word "socialism" while in essence holding the workers back from power in the name of democracy and national defense? What is it about Chavez and the PSUV that workers should unite with? Note: I say "unite" with, not "defend"--because obviously it is of the utmost and extreme duty of the workers to defend them from imperialism, but that duty falls on workers in regards to figures that you definitely don't politically support as well.

Chavez is not a revolutionary socialist, but a genuine left reformist socialist.

But if Trotskyist parties like the CWI (formerly the Militant Tendency) can partially support the Labour Left in the UK like Tony Benn, I just don't see why Chavez is any different. He sure is much better than any other political alternatives in Venezuela at the moment.

[RedTrackWorker]

Chavez is not a revolutionary socialist, but a genuine left reformist socialist.

But if Trotskyist parties like the CWI (formerly the Militant Tendency) can partially support the Labour Left in the UK like Tony Benn, I just don't see why Chavez is any different. He sure is much better than any other political alternatives in Venezuela at the moment.

I agree with you on one thing Iseul: supporting Chavez (however critically) is consistent with many self-professed revolutionary groupings' political method.

I don't even know what "genuine left reformist socialist" really means? Were the German Social-Democrats who voted for WW1 "genuine left reformist socialists" by your definition? What exactly can socialism possibly mean if it's anti-revolutionary? It then becomes just a word--a cover, a ruse.
But by saying he's "much better" than others, you imply you'd vote for him? If that is what you mean, my early question applies as to how we're supposed to build a party that can lead the workers and oppressed to overthrow the capitalist state if we're willing to tell them to vote for "left reformists" who use the word socialism?

[Queercommie Girl]

I agree with you on one thing Iseul: supporting Chavez (however critically) is consistent with many self-professed revolutionary groupings' political method.

I don't even know what "genuine left reformist socialist" really means? Were the German Social-Democrats who voted for WW1 "genuine left reformist socialists" by your definition? What exactly can socialism possibly mean if it's anti-revolutionary? It then becomes just a word--a cover, a ruse.
But by saying he's "much better" than others, you imply you'd vote for him? If that is what you mean, my early question applies as to how we're supposed to build a party that can lead the workers and oppressed to overthrow the capitalist state if we're willing to tell them to vote for "left reformists" who use the word socialism?


Wait, why do you automatically assume that reformists must always be anti-revolutionary? Of course I won't support any reformist who is explicitly anti-revolutionary, like say the "social democrats" in Germany who murdered Rosa Luxemburg.

I don't actually support left centrist-reformists anyway, I only partially support them, there is a fundamental difference.

Yes, I'd probably vote for Chavez but keep on building socialist forces at the same time, I mean revolutionary socialism isn't exactly constructed through parliamentary action primarily anyway, is it?

I suppose you also reject the CWI's approach with respect to the British Labour Party? The Militant Tendency used to have quite a few Labour MPs. Their strategy is to combine parliamentary action with non-parliamentary action.

[S.Artesian]

Do you have an example of a reformist organization in power, who when push came to shove, did not either actively embrace reaction, or disorient and weaken the proletariat in the struggle against that reaction.

Do you have an example of a reformist organization that embraced revolution, other than repeating the word "revolution" like the MNR did in Bolivia, like Allende in Chile, like... etc etc etc?

[RedTrackWorker]

Wait, why do you automatically assume that reformists must always be anti-revolutionary? Of course I won't support any reformist who is explicitly anti-revolutionary, like say the "social democrats" in Germany who murdered Rosa Luxemburg.

I don't actually support left centrist-reformists anyway, I only partially support them, there is a fundamental difference.

Yes, I'd probably vote for Chavez but keep on building socialist forces at the same time, I mean revolutionary socialism isn't exactly constructed through parliamentary action primarily anyway, is it?

I suppose you also reject the CWI's approach with respect to the British Labour Party? The Militant Tendency used to have quite a few Labour MPs. Their strategy is to combine parliamentary action with non-parliamentary action.

I am not against voting or parliamentary action as such. I am not against voting for or running in a labor party as such. I am against voting for a capitalist politician as such (i.e. Chavez), and am against "deep entrism" and against always voting for the Labor Party or for calling for building one (i.e. what the CWI does). See the "No to new reformist parties" link in my sig for more on that, but in sum, the point is to fight for a revolutionary party and a labor party vote or call is a tactic to be used in specific conditions (none of which obtain right now) and if it's used as a strategy, it hides the call for a revolutionary party.

Sure, you can say "vote for Chavez and build the revolutionary party," and you can say, "Green is red" as well. In the latter quote, the logical contradiction is obvious, in the former quote the lesson apparently has to be explained, which is that calling to build a revolutionary party to fight for socialism has to mean first and foremost telling the workers to rely upon themselves and their political and organizational independence. That independent organization and the consciousness of it is the only weapon they have in the fight against the capitalist ruling class. To then tell them at election time that voting for a capitalist party can help their struggle is to negate that lesson. Further, such a perspective never exists in isolation just on election day (except when the method is a transitory case, which for the CWI it obviously isn't) but informs the broader method. For the CWI, that means their U.S. paper is called "Justice" and talks about "socialism"--but never mentions the need for a revolution, for the need for the workers to overthrow the capitalist state and build their own. To tell the workers that "justice" and "socialism" can be achieved without a revolution is a lie and to ignore that is to accept the cynicism that weighs like a dead weight on the mind of the far left today.