Venezuelan Workers March Again to Demand Socialism at the Workplace.

[Le Socialiste]

Mérida, March 31st 2011 (Venezuelanalysis.com) – Thousands of Venezuelan workers took to the streets of Caracas on Thursday to demand immediate improvements in workplace democracy and to insist on the final passage of a radical new labor law that has been held up in the National Assembly since 2003. According to organizers from Venezuela’s National Workers’ Union (UNETE), the march was intended to reiterate the national union’s “critical support” for the government of Hugo Chávez and to push for greater consolidation of Chávez’s proposed “21st century socialism” on job sites nationwide.
“We want to deepen real worker control, advance in the efficiency and efficacy of the [publicly-owned] companies, and we want and end to impunity. All of these demands are an obvious part of the revolutionary project,” said UNETE National Coordinator Marcela Máspero.
Máspero spoke to UNETE’s insistence on the democratization unions, the planning of production and workplans by workers themselves, and an end to violence and repression against outspoken “revolutionary” workers.
“The working class is who has been called upon to construct socialism,” said Rosa Grimau, spokesperson for the Promotion Committee of the Socialist Workers’ Council within the National Assembly. “That’s why we ourselves must consolidate a force that makes proposals in line with elevating the quality of working conditions throughout the country,” she said.
Socialist Workers’ Councils are one of over 10,000 proposals that have been made in ongoing discussions for a new Organic Labor Law, under discussion since 2002.
Though Thursday’s march resembled a similar UNETE action organized on 9 November 2010, it differed from last year’s demonstration in that it included a brief standoff between demonstrators and police.
According to an article (http://www.aporrea.org/trabajadores/n178075.html) published in Aporrea.org, the organizer’s plans to march directly to the Venezuelan National Assembly were stalled for over an hour by a multi-layered ring of police forces, including officers from municipal and national forces as well as members of the Bolivarian National Guard.
After negotiating with police officials, marchers were allowed to continue on their scheduled route and submit their demands in writing to United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) deputy and Vice President of the National Assembly (AN) Aristóbulo Istúriz.
Istúriz committed himself to delivering the marchers’ demands directly to AN President Fernando Soto Rojas, though he insisted the next steps for advancing the proposed Organic Labor Law must be taken by the AN’s Permanent Commission for Social Development.
Last Friday, over 15,000 workers marched in the southern state of Bolívar with similar demands – calling for more socialism, denouncing imperialism’s assault on national sovereignties, and committing themselves to the consolidation of socialist unions in all of the primary industries (steel, iron, aluminum, and coal) present in the region.


The people are demanding the further democratization of their industries...a workplace organized, operated, and democratically coordianted by the workers themselves. They are asking for the furthering of an increasingly revolutionary socialism; why the need for police and national guard? Are the people becoming more revolutionized than the government might like? It just strikes me as odd that the state felt it necessary that a police/guard presence be present at a demonstration demanding socialism... :confused:

http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/6106

[Rss]

It just strikes me as odd that the state felt it necessary that a police/guard presence be present at a demonstration demanding socialism... :confused:

http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/6106

Kinda shows Hugo's true colors, doesn't it? Venezuelans need to kick him down and bring the progress forward themselves.

[Kiev Communard]

It just strikes me as odd that the state felt it necessary that a police/guard presence be present at a demonstration demanding socialism.

It is not at all odd. Any State is by definition an association of ruling class against the subordinate ones. Chavez does not renounce capitalism, he dismisses neoliberal form of capitalism, while basically promoting neo-Keynesian one.

[Nolan]

I like how some people look at Venezuela and see one man pulling the strings of every single police action.

[Thirsty Crow]

I like how some people look at Venezuela and see one man pulling the strings of every single police action.
Yeah, if we were to be entirely sceptical, there'd be at least two burning questions to ask:

1) why the police and the National Guard?

2) why hasn't the legislation in question been passed yet, or at least clearly formulated and brought up as a bill (I'm not sure if Venezuela distinguishes between "bills" and "acts" :confused:)?

As far as the first question is concerned, if we were naive, we could conclude that public order (massive demos may result in all kinds of shit) was the primary factor behind the decision on behalf of the official authorities.
If we were naive.

The second question is more complex and problematic. Maybe we could push the discussion in this direction.

[Tim Finnegan]

I like how some people look at Venezuela and see one man pulling the strings of every single police action.
You'd think that more leftists would be able to see past the "brown + anti-American = dictator" logic peddled by the Western media, wouldn't you?

[El Chuncho]

You'd think that more leftists would be able to see past the "brown + anti-American = dictator" logic peddled by the Western media, wouldn't you?

You would, wouldn't you? But the Western media is too powerful and entrenched in the mindset of even some leftist westerners. Chavez does a lot of good for his people, even if he may not be perfect, and has an almost spotless record. He is anti-American due to the simple reason that not only is it the major playing in Latin America, occupy many countries and supporting fascist dictators, but it also wages wars against any country it feels has slighted it. Anti-Americanism is not villainy, indeed.

[b man]

This is good stuff! People are marching in the streets in Venezuela and the first thing you people think to do is rush to Chavez's defense. :lol:

[Tim Finnegan]

This is good stuff! People are marching in the streets in Venezuela and the first thing you people think to do is rush to Chavez's defense. :lol:
Actually, the first thing that happened was people rushing to criticise Chavez. What we did was speculate as to the validity of the particular criticisms, specifically, the idea that Chavez is personally responsible for the deployment of the Caracas Metropolitan Police.

Also, note that "the march was intended to reiterate the national union’s “critical support” for the government of Hugo Chávez and to push for greater consolidation of Chávez’s proposed “21st century socialism” on job sites nationwide." This wasn't intended in opposition to Chavez, but, rather to prod him into further action; is a "defence", as you seem to use the term, actually necessary?

[Le Socialiste]

While I tend to be critical of Chavez's politics, the article doesn't say whether or not he ordered/authorized the deployment of security forces. Either way, I find it deeply unsettling that a state/government that claims to adhere to the principles of socialism would find it necessary to place "security" around a march for the furtherment of a socialistic society.

[Tim Finnegan]

While I tend to be critical of Chavez's politics, the article doesn't say whether or not he ordered/authorized the deployment of security forces. Either way, I find it deeply unsettling that a state/government that claims to adhere to the principles of socialism would find it necessary to place "security" around a march for the furtherment of a socialistic society.
Then you probably shouldn't conflate the state and the administration. It'll save you a lot of grief.

[b man]

Actually, the first thing that happened was people rushing to criticise Chavez.

By pointing out that there was a demonstration?



is a "defence", as you seem to use the term, actually necessary?

What does this mean?

[dernier combat]

You'd think that more leftists would be able to see past the "brown + anti-American = dictator" logic peddled by the Western media, wouldn't you?
So are you actually going to cite proof of your claims that this is the logic of many so-called "leftists"?

[Tim Finnegan]

By pointing out that there was a demonstration?
By suggesting Chavez had some personal role in the deployment of the Caracas Metropolitan Police, which I'm not entirely sure is a responsibility allotted to the Venezuelan president.


What does this mean?It means that those of us who sympathise with Chavez have no reason to "rush to his defence", because he is not under attack. This is an example of his own popular base prodding him into further action: it is an expression of critical support.


So are you actually going to cite proof of your claims that this is the logic of many so-called "leftists"?
I didn't realise that I was supposed to offer citations for sardonic remarks.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I LOL at those who make this march of Venezuelan workers look like it's showing opposition to Chavez and the PSUV. :laugh: Given that it's furthest from the truth. Fact of the matter is that these are critical supporters of Chavez and the PSUV. They believe what he represents and wants to implement his ideal of "socialism in the 21st century". Those claiming that Chavez is a neo-liberal and doesn't denounce capitalism, these are the idiots who probably spend very little time paying attention to the events of Venezuela, the policies that have passed through and are going to pass through, and then not to mention the large opposition that stand, not just in the streets, but also in the govt. as well. No matter. Idealists will be idealists. It's easy to denounce someone as not being a revolutionary from the computer. Though, if anyone's a revolutionary between those denouncing Chavez from RevLeft and Chavez himself, Chavez clearly takes home the cake.

[BIG BROTHER]

I don't see anything wrong with this March at all. It is necesary that the working class organizes independently to support and fight for their interests, which they are doing by demanding workers control over industry.

Also the article clearly shows that they are "critical supporters" of Chavez and rather than marching in opposition to him, they are just trying to influence the political process.

[Tim Finnegan]

I don't see anything wrong with this March at all. It is necesary that the working class organizes independently to support and fight for their interests, which they are doing by demanding workers control over industry.
Indeed. I would even go so far as to suggest that this sort of thing is a product of the movement of which Chavez is part: it reflects the increasing re-orientation of Venezuelan politics away from the bourgeoisie and towards the working class, and locates the driving force of this re-orientation within the working class itself. Where else in the world could the people march through the streets asking, in all sincerity, the bourgeois state to do away with itself? That's a sight that has not been seen in the first world for almost a century, and in many parts of it, not at all. Even if it suggests that Chavez is being overly timid, it shows that the movement which produced him- and I think Chavez, along with perhaps Morales, is unique in that he is a product of a popular movement, and not the leader of a populist movement- is doing something very right indeed.

Whether or not you actually believe that Chavez is capable of doing anything approaching this, whether or not you consider these requests simplistic and utopian, and whether or not you consider that movement capable of developing a revolutionary nature or bound to mere reformism, that's not something that can be dismissed.

[pranabjyoti]

To Chavez critics, please name someone better than him to replace him in near future. OTHERWISE, STOP PLAYING THE GAME.

[dernier combat]

I didn't realise that I was supposed to offer citations for sardonic remarks.
Well they seem like pretty serious allegations in the context of "leftists".

[dernier combat]

To Chavez critics, please name someone better than him to replace him in near future. OTHERWISE, STOP PLAYING THE GAME.
Generally, communist critics of Chavez don't name any individual that they think will be a better replacement, because they believe that a militant, independent working class itself could do a better job, as it is the real force of social change, as in all capitalist societies. I think any rational communist would agree with this principle. If you think that the mobilisation of the working class independent of Chavez is not a possibility (as this is a predictable response from many Chavistas), then you might as well give up on the prospect of revolution - anywhere.

[Red_Struggle]

No matter what tendency you subscribe to, this march should be looked at in a positive light. The workers are demanding more socialist aspects of society and they are working towards more democracy in the workplace. How the government responds to this will be a strong indicator of the class nature of the Chavez government.

That being said, Hugo Chavez is miles better than any president Venezuela has had in the past. I'm not fond of the Bolivarian "revolution" or the gradual gravitation towards nationalization, but he is doing more than any past Venezuelan president I can think of.

[pranabjyoti]

Generally, communist critics of Chavez don't name any individual that they think will be a better replacement, because they believe that a militant, independent working class itself could do a better job, as it is the real force of social change, as in all capitalist societies. I think any rational communist would agree with this principle. If you think that the mobilisation of the working class independent of Chavez is not a possibility (as this is a predictable response from many Chavistas), then you might as well give up on the prospect of revolution - anywhere.
So far, in recent history at least, there isn't a single example of movement of the militant working class without a leader. It seems like an army fighting without a general.
If you consider yourself a Marxist, then I hope you know that every leader must represent a class. Bourgeoisie have a long history and they have huge reserve in their hand so that they can replace leaders quickly. But, that isn't the case for proletariat. Therefore, a replacement of Chavez is a must for militant working class to gain more ground in Venezuela. Who is the replacement?
If you are advocating some kind of leaderless uprising, then you are actually advocating the throwing of working class into worst kind of trouble. In that case, I suspect whether you are really a friend of working class or a secret agent.

[Luís Henrique]

I don't see anything wrong with this March at all. It is necesary that the working class organizes independently to support and fight for their interests, which they are doing by demanding workers control over industry.

Also the article clearly shows that they are "critical supporters" of Chavez and rather than marching in opposition to him, they are just trying to influence the political process.

Something that would be completely impossible in Libya, for instance.

Luís Henrique

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

So far, in recent history at least, there isn't a single example of movement of the militant working class without a leader.

There isn't a single example in recent history of a movement of the militant working class being successful in emancipating itself either. The two things are related.

[black magick hustla]

So far, in recent history at least, there isn't a single example of movement of the militant working class without a leader. It seems like an army fighting without a general.

There are always "leaders" in the sense that there will always be those who are the most charismatic, the better at organizing, etcetera. I think that is different from a small cadre of stalinists trying to cause a coup d'etat.

[Tim Finnegan]

Well they seem like pretty serious allegations in the context of "leftists".
Then allow me to elaborate:

The mainstream discourse around Chavez assumes that he is some sort of populist strongman, more or less on the basis that he's a person of colour, that his nation is in the global South, and that his rhetoric is anti-American. While I would not go so far as to sincerely accuse comrades here of falling for this nonsense- and certainly not to the crypto-imperialist ideology it represents- I would suggest that even the alternative, radical discourse has been influenced by this to the extent that some comrades fall prey to the twin mistakes of conflating the Venezuelan government with Chavez personally, and the Venezuelan government with the Venezuelan state, and thus attribute far more to Chavez than is objectively the case. (And, of course, the reverse can also be true: that too much of the progress made by the movement which Chavez represents is attributed to either Chavez, his government, or his party.)


There are always "leaders" in the sense that there will always be those who are the most charismatic, the better at organizing, etcetera. I think that is different from a small cadre of stalinists trying to cause a coup d'etat.
The comparison I find myself making is to the early European labour parties: a minority offer political leadership, but the driving force of the movement lies in the masses of the working class. What we really want to see in Venezuela is for the working class and working class organisations to adopt the position of political leadership and organisation to a greater and greater extent, and not to settle for merely offering political weight to a removed professional leadership- as was the case in the degenerated forms of the European parties.

[dernier combat]

So far, in recent history at least, there isn't a single example of movement of the militant working class without a leader. It seems like an army fighting without a general.
If you consider yourself a Marxist, then I hope you know that every leader must represent a class. Bourgeoisie have a long history and they have huge reserve in their hand so that they can replace leaders quickly. But, that isn't the case for proletariat. Therefore, a replacement of Chavez is a must for militant working class to gain more ground in Venezuela. Who is the replacement?
If you are advocating some kind of leaderless uprising, then you are actually advocating the throwing of working class into worst kind of trouble. In that case, I suspect whether you are really a friend of working class or a secret agent.
Chavez isn't just the leader of a communist movement, he is the bourgeois head of a bourgeois state. I have no problems with movements having leaders, but I do have a problem with members of the ruling class becoming said leaders.

When person x asks person y who a better replacement for Chavez would be, person y, being a communist with a materialist understanding of the world, would analyse Chavez's primarily role in society as the Venezuelan president and his class status and interests which result from that. Person y then assumes the question is intended to be phrased "who would make for a better President of Venezuela than Hugo Chavez?".

fucking lol at you suspecting I'm a secret agent.

[Tim Finnegan]

Chavez isn't just the leader of a communist movement, he is the bourgeois head of a bourgeois state. I have no problems with movements having leaders, but I do have a problem with members of the ruling class becoming said leaders.
Buh?

[dernier combat]

Buh?
What other class would you give to members of government largely protecting bourgeois interests, especially heads of state? I don't feel relation to means of production alone is a sufficient factor in determining class when it comes to the likes of members of government (especially when they don't own private property). My class analysis goes something along the lines of an individual's relation to sources of power within society. I simply adopt the word 'bourgeoisie' to refer to the ruling class, which in the majority of individual cases doesn't conflict with the orthodox Marxist definition. There are exceptions though, such as this.

edit: this is beginning to derail the thread

[Le Socialiste]

So far, in recent history at least, there isn't a single example of movement of the militant working class without a leader. It seems like an army fighting without a general.
If you consider yourself a Marxist, then I hope you know that every leader must represent a class. Bourgeoisie have a long history and they have huge reserve in their hand so that they can replace leaders quickly. But, that isn't the case for proletariat. Therefore, a replacement of Chavez is a must for militant working class to gain more ground in Venezuela. Who is the replacement?
If you are advocating some kind of leaderless uprising, then you are actually advocating the throwing of working class into worst kind of trouble. In that case, I suspect whether you are really a friend of working class or a secret agent.


The proletariat isn’t some mere “army” to be led; it is, in times of true revolutionary activity—and revolution itself—the backbone of any potential break with the existing order. Nothing happens without it. A revolution is doomed if it is led by a small, revolutionized minority. By this, I mean, it does not constitute a true separation with the old capitalist world. You argue that the militancy of the working class won’t go anywhere unless helmed by the strength and will of some individual—“an army without a general”. I have nothing against leaders in times of revolution, but once the working-class has seized and hold power these leaders are no longer needed. Leaders, borne from the ranks of the proletariat, must hold the approval of the majority and not represent a handful of privileged individuals.

But let’s take your “army without a general” statement further: an army, unless forcibly altered by those serving in it, is an oppressive, hierarchical system of authority. This may be acceptable for some; not for me. I prefer a democratic model, in which the people elect their leaders, and the leaders must bring all matters to a vote.



Therefore, a replacement of Chavez is a must for militant working class to gain more ground in Venezuela. Who is the replacement?


The people themselves! It is clear that the masses there are conscious of their wants and needs—they’re demanding more socialism, after all. In the event Chavez is gone, the people hold the ability to govern themselves. No revolution needs a leader.



If you are advocating some kind of leaderless uprising, then you are actually advocating the throwing of working class into worst kind of trouble. In that case, I suspect whether you are really a friend of working class or a secret agent.


This is slanderous, comrade.

[Tim Finnegan]

What other class would you give to members of government largely protecting bourgeois interests, especially heads of state? I don't feel relation to means of production alone is a sufficient factor in determining class when it comes to the likes of members of government (especially when they don't own private property). My class analysis goes something along the lines of an individual's relation to sources of power within society. I simply adopt the word 'bourgeoisie' to refer to the ruling class, which in the majority of individual cases doesn't conflict with the orthodox Marxist definition. There are exceptions though, such as this.
I think that you're over-simplifying a complex issue to justify your own scepticism of reformism. I agree that Venezeula represents a bourgeois state, but I'm not so ready to suppose that class struggle can not manifest within the state apparatus. I think that most people here would agree that it can manifest in conflicts between different levels of state apparatus- a municipal council clashing with parliament, for example- so why do we necessarily assume that it cannot manifest, however imperfectly, at the high levels of the apparatus? To suggest that proletarian status can only be affirmed by distancing oneself from all forms of institutional power is to demand a revolutionary asceticism that owes more to romantic ideals than any materialist theory.

That's not to say, of course, that this is a particularly effective battleground, simply to observe that the viability of a given manifestation of class struggle and its existence are two different measures. I think that the real hope of Chavez's involvement in state politics is prying open enough of a gap in the system for the working class to establish some substantial independent political power, rather than in bestowing socialism from on high. (Unfortunately, Chavez himself seems a little too enamoured with his own position to force that as radically as is necessary, so that will require a bit of meaningful pushing on the part of the working class, as I suspect that we are beginning to see in protests like this.)


edit: this is beginning to derail the threadYou don't think that determining the class character of Chavism is important in examining its relationship to the working class?

[dernier combat]

I agree that Venezeula represents a bourgeois state, but I'm not so ready to suppose that class struggle can not manifest within the state apparatus. I think that most people here would agree that it can manifest in conflicts between different levels of state apparatus- a municipal council clashing with parliament, for example- so why do we necessarily assume that it cannot manifest, however imperfectly, at the high levels of the apparatus? To suggest that proletarian status can only be affirmed by distancing oneself from all forms of institutional power is to demand a revolutionary asceticism that owes more to romantic ideals than any materialist theory.
Maybe class struggle can manifest within the state, but it will ultimately prove fruitless as the working class cannot use the bourgeois state to significantly further its own interests (e.g. revolution). I tend to view class strugglists within the state as being misguided in their path for achieving socialism.


You don't think that determining the class character of Chavism is important in examining its relationship to the working class?
I meant that explaining my own class analysis to justify why I called Chavez bourgeois was beginning to derail the thread, as most posters here would have immediately challenged what I said and we would have gone off-topic. But you didn't, so disregard it.

[Tim Finnegan]

Maybe class struggle can manifest within the state, but it will ultimately prove fruitless as the working class cannot use the bourgeois state to significantly further its own interests (e.g. revolution). I tend to view class strugglists within the state as being misguided in their path for achieving socialism.
I agree that socialism cannot be established through the bourgeois state, but I'm afraid that I have to raise an eyebrow at your reference to "significant" change. What is "significant", exactly? Presumably, you're not suggesting that no worthwhile advances of any sort can be achieved through involvement in the state, so where are you drawing the line between worthwhile and pointless involvement?


I meant that explaining my own class analysis to justify why I called Chavez bourgeois was beginning to derail the thread, as most posters here would have immediately challenged what I said and we would have gone off-topic. But you didn't, so disregard it.Fair 'nuff.

[dernier combat]

I agree that socialism cannot be established through the bourgeois state, but I'm afraid that I have to raise an eyebrow at your reference to "significant" change. What is "significant", exactly? Presumably, you're not suggesting that no worthwhile advances of any sort can be achieved through involvement in the state, so where are you drawing the line between worthwhile and pointless involvement?
I should specified. I mean changes that involve the introduction of truly democratic power structures in government and the workplace, which the bourgeoisie would not stand for.

[Tim Finnegan]

I should specified. I mean changes that involve the introduction of truly democratic power structures in government and the workplace, which the bourgeoisie would not stand for.
"Would not stand for"? What do you mean by that?

[Primavera]

What frustrates me is that every time a discussion comes up (here or elsewhere) about Venezuela it invariably gets derailed into a debate over the merits or problems with Chavez. This completely obscures the reality of the situation. Regardless of what you think of the man, the programs the government is implementing is opening the space for the working class to truly build the alternative society that they want. You can see this in the growing power of Comunas (http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/5479), or the redistribution of land or communal housing projects.

Yes, Chavez is working within the state aparatus but I challenge you to conceive of a better way of organizing the transition to an alternative society in today's world. Not only is the directive for real changes in society coming from above, its being carried by the will of the people from below, and in many cases independent of the will of Chavez. I would go so far as to say that what we are seeing Venezuela is far more revolutionary than anything happening in North Africa right now, of course you'll never hear that on cable TV.

[RadioRaheem84]

There is a difference in being pro-Bolivarian revolution and being pro-Chavez.

I, for one, am very pro-Bolivarian but am also critical of Chavez, while at the same time am supportive of his administration against the opposition.

Chavez is an old school Soc Dem, simple as that. Maybe even a bit Democratic Socialist, but no further.

What the people want is socialism, economic democracy.

Chavez is trying to give people socialism while the same time maintaining the old order in some balance that he thinks will show the superiority of socialism.

This will backfire as more and more workers will demand total control of enterprise.

[Tim Finnegan]

What frustrates me is that every time a discussion comes up (here or elsewhere) about Venezuela it invariably gets derailed into a debate over the merits or problems with Chavez. This completely obscures the reality of the situation. Regardless of what you think of the man, the programs the government is implementing is opening the space for the working class to truly build the alternative society that they want. You can see this in the growing power of Comunas (http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/5479), or the redistribution of land or communal housing projects.

Yes, Chavez is working within the state aparatus but I challenge you to conceive of a better way of organizing the transition to an alternative society in today's world. Not only is the directive for real changes in society coming from above, its being carried by the will of the people from below, and in many cases independent of the will of Chavez.
I agree. As I've said before, it's important to remember that, while Chavez and the PSUV are the primary representative of the Venezuelan worker's movement within the state apparatus, he and his party are neither the driving force behind that movement nor solely responsible for its steering. His public and political presence is an extension of a mass movement, rather than the reverse.


I would go so far as to say that what we are seeing Venezuela is far more revolutionary than anything happening in North Africa right now, of course you'll never hear that on cable TV. That's certainly true. Even the most positive possible outcomes in the Middle East will not put the working class in a position to seize political power, while what's happening in Venezuela could turn out to be just that.

[Luís Henrique]

Chavez is an old school Soc Dem, simple as that.

How is Chávez a social-democrat? Old school, on top?

His base of power doesn't include a corrupt unionist structure, nor a mass-party, nor any of the distinctive features of social-democrats. Nor do his government programs have anything to do with social-democracy.

Venezuela is a profoundly debilitated economy, afflicted by the abundance of oil, totally dependent of foreign markets, and in a dire process of deindustrialisation. It doesn't even offer possible grounds for social-democratic policies.

The country is going through a violent crisis and does not enjoy the stability typical of social democracies. Chávez is a populist who appeals to the masses in order to maintain a position of personal power; this makes possible for the working class to attain some conquests, but the private property of means of production is not being put into question (when it is, and it probably will not take long, we will see if Chávez is able to advance with the masses, or if he will turn against them).

Luís Henrique

[Primavera]

but the private property of means of production is not being put into question (when it is, and it probably will not take long, we will see if Chávez is able to advance with the masses, or if he will turn against them).

Luís Henrique

How does the nationalization of industry, redistribution of unused farmland (expropriated directly from the bourgeoisie) into collectives and support for workers councils not "put into question" the private property of means of production? Socialism is quite literally being implemented in Venezuela, albeit gradually.

[RadioRaheem84]

How does the nationalization of industry, redistribution of unused farmland (expropriated directly from the bourgeoisie) into collectives and support for workers councils not "put into question" the private property of means of production? Socialism is quite literally being implemented in Venezuela, albeit gradually.


Exactly. Luis's post barely made any sense to me.

[Tim Finnegan]

...nor a mass-party....
Just to be picky, the PSUV has a membership of over two and a half million, which means that over one in ten Venezuelan adults is a member. Does that not constitute a mass party, or I am misunderstanding the precise nature of the term?

[Reznov]

Kinda shows Hugo's true colors, doesn't it? Venezuelans need to kick him down and bring the progress forward themselves.

Hopefully the workers continue the marches and strikes and get their demands.

Just shoes you, even in places in Venezuela the class struggle is still waged.

[Luís Henrique]

How does the nationalization of industry, redistribution of unused farmland (expropriated directly from the bourgeoisie) into collectives and support for workers councils not "put into question" the private property of means of production? Socialism is quite literally being implemented in Venezuela, albeit gradually.

Nationalisation of industry. The main Venezolan industry - oil - has been nationalised much before Chávez - and I don't think this in anyway checked private property in Venezuela. Extending nationalisation into the minor branches of Venezolan industry - and they are really minor - will just turn some companies into capitalist ventures owned by the State. This has never put into question private property, the anarchy of capitalist production, the extraction of surplus value, etc.

Land reform much less - it is an important democratic task of any revolution, but it does not socialise land or abolish private property.

Is there support for workers councils? Are workers councils actually directing production, or even labour, within Venezolan companies? I don't think so, though I may be wrong. What I obviously see is neighbourhood councils, that have absolutely no say inside the companies, in production. They are probably useful and progressive, but workers councils they are not.

I think Venezuela remains firmly a capitalist country. It has a government that tries to do something about this, but there apparently isn't too much clarity on what should be done. It has a government that, for the most part, doesn't engage in direct, violent repression of the working class movement, at least up to now; but it also has a working class that hasn't been able to put up a strong independent self-organisation, nor has actually made a bid for power until now.

I do critically support Chávez, or many of his actions, and certainly do that against the Venezolan political opposition - including the ridiculous students movement of some time ago, with its utter defence of bourgeois rule - but I remain skeptic about how far can it go.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Just to be picky, the PSUV has a membership of over two and a half million, which means that over one in ten Venezuelan adults is a member. Does that not constitute a mass party, or I am misunderstanding the precise nature of the term?

Mmmno, I don't think sheer numbers a mass party make.

The Brazilian party with the largest membership is the PMDB, and it is not a mass party. The PT, with a smaller membership, though, certainly is a mass party. It has to do with the organic life of the party, not with the size of the membership. Maybe I am wrong and the PSUV is a mass party, though it looks more like a clientelistic party. But even if it is a mass party, it certainly isn't a social-democratic mass party, closely tied to unionism and with a long history of working class movement activism. It is another kind of beast, I think.

Luís Henrique

[Aspiring Humanist]

Always thought it was hilarious how Hugo goes on and on about democracy and the people and how evil the west is for staging that coup against him when he attempted a coup in 1992. Hugo's a step in the right direction but hes not nearly enough for Latin America

[agnixie]

Always thought it was hilarious how Hugo goes on and on about democracy and the people and how evil the west is for staging that coup against him when he attempted a coup in 1992. Hugo's a step in the right direction but hes not nearly enough for Latin America

Meh, he's a loud mouth and western media likes to distort everything he says as though he was always serious, but at least when he does something, it's generally a pleasant surprise (as for going on and on; that was a common caricature of Jaurès ;) ). It's slow, reformisty, and is in the Brazilian-European orbit, but still, it's ostensibly going somewhere and it seems somewhere good.

[Aspiring Humanist]

Meh, he's a loud mouth and western media likes to distort everything he says as though he was always serious, but at least when he does something, it's generally a pleasant surprise (as for going on and on; that was a common caricature of Jaurès ;) ). It's slow, reformisty, and is in the Brazilian-European orbit, but still, it's ostensibly going somewhere and it seems somewhere good.

Of course he's a positive influence in Latin America but he sounds more talk than action

[Tim Finnegan]

Always thought it was hilarious how Hugo goes on and on about democracy and the people and how evil the west is for staging that coup against him when he attempted a coup in 1992.
C'mon, let's not fall into the bourgeois delusion that formal elections inherently constitute meaningful democracy. The Pérez government was corrupt, cronyistic and incompetent, and Pérez himself a crook, a liar and a fraud; the very fact that the bourgeois state itself was forced to imprison the man only a year later on charges of corruption attests to that. Whatever you think of Chavez or his coup attempt, one cannot so easily conflate a radical, popular, and, as far as anyone can tell, scrupulous government with a corrupt, dishonest and neoliberal one; just compare the relatively peaceful aftermath of the 2002 coup with Pérez's hysterical, thoroughly Mubarakian response for a frank illustration of the differences between the two.

[Aspiring Humanist]

C'mon, let's not fall into the bourgeois delusion that formal elections inherently constitute meaningful democracy. The Pérez government was corrupt, cronyistic and incompetent, and Pérez himself a crook, a liar and a fraud; the very fact that the bourgeois state itself was forced to imprison the man only a year later on charges of corruption attests to that. Whatever you think of Chavez or his coup attempt, one cannot so easily conflate a radical, popular, and, as far as anyone can tell, scrupulous government with a corrupt, dishonest and neoliberal one; just compare the relatively peaceful aftermath of the 2002 coup with Pérez's hysterical, thoroughly Mubarakian response for a frank illustration of the differences between the two.

I'm not saying Perez was a good guy, and I'm not condemning Chavez for his coup. I'm saying it's funny how Chavez calls the west evil (which it is) for organizing a coup against him while 19 years ago he did the same thing. It's just hypocrisy.

[Gorilla]

I'm not saying Perez was a good guy, and I'm not condemning Chavez for his coup. I'm saying it's funny how Chavez calls the west evil (which it is) for organizing a coup against him while 19 years ago he did the same thing. It's just hypocrisy.

The elected government had just massacred up to 3000 protestors. It wasn't just "oh haha wouldn't it be lulzy to take absolute power for ourselves."

[Aspiring Humanist]

The elected government had just slaughtered a square full of people. It wasn't just "oh haha wouldn't it be smashing to take absolute power for ourselves."

I realize that but the point stands

[Tim Finnegan]

I'm not saying Perez was a good guy, and I'm not condemning Chavez for his coup. I'm saying it's funny how Chavez calls the west evil (which it is) for organizing a coup against him while 19 years ago he did the same thing. It's just hypocrisy.
Only if we adopt a crude absolutism in which coup-staging is a morally discrete act removed from political context, which would make us godawful leftists.

[Gorilla]

I realize that but the point stands

Wow, takin' on Chavez from the right. Bold move, my friend.

[dernier combat]

"Would not stand for"? What do you mean by that?
Would oppose; intervene against (in a variety of ways).

[Luís Henrique]

I realize that but the point stands

Nope. The point falls.

Perez had been elected on a platform of opposing neoliberal reforms. He took charge and, surprise surprise, issued a whole pack of the neoliberal reforms he had opposed as a candidate. The people in Caracas went to the streets protesting this shameful coup (because a coup it was), and Perez unleashed brutal repression onto them and suspended constitutional rights. This was the context of Chavez's attempted coup. There is no hypocrisy at all: the attempted coup against Perez was - ill advised as it was - an attempted coup against a shocking breach of democratic principles; the attempted coup against Chavez was an attempted coup against an elected government that sticks - realistic considerations apart - to its electoral promises.

Luís Henrique