Venezuela moving towards state capitalism?

[JustMovement]

I was trying to figure out where Chavez fits on the political spectrum, and it seemed unfair to lump him with the social democrats. I was thinking he might represent a kind of democratic and progressive state capitalism, as he is putting increasing amount of the economy under state and worker control. I think that capitalist property relations will persist even if this trend continues, or accelerates, however it represents a move in the right direction (I believe). ideally (and this is pure speculation) Venezuela could emobdy some of the best features of the USSR with less of its flaws (e.g a more dynamic economy, and greater democracy).
I know a lot of this has to do with how you define SDs, State caps, and socialists and the rest is speculation, but my wider point is, in the absence of revolutionary will, could state capitalism be put forth and campaigned for as a radical program?

[Jose Gracchus]

No. There is the small matter of independence of the working-class.

EDIT: I think this holds regardless (internationalism), however, since this is the United States, or in your case, the United Kingdom, even a believer in the so-called "national" or "patriotic" or "progressive" bourgeoisie (like pro-Chavez bourgeois, and they do exist) must decline to believe that such a thing could exist here or there.

[CesareBorgia]

I was trying to figure out where Chavez fits on the political spectrum

He's a bourgeois nationalist


he is putting increasing amount of the economy under state and worker control.

No, he isnt.


I think that capitalist property relations will persist even if this trend continues, or accelerates, however it represents a move in the right direction (I believe).

No it doesn't.


ideally (and this is pure speculation) Venezuela could emobdy some of the best features of the USSR with less of its flaws (e.g a more dynamic economy, and greater democracy).

:confused: You would like to see something like a USSR but with capitalist property relations?


in the absence of revolutionary will, could state capitalism be put forth and campaigned for as a radical program?

Socialist revolution is the only thing that should be put forth and campaigned for.

[JustMovement]

To InformCandidate, note that I say "in the abscence of revolutionary will." I am not really arguing about socialism, yes of course it would be preferable, but it is not on the table. However I do believe that there is space for a "populist" left program in Europe, especially in light of the austerity measures. And I believe that the Chavista program (not the nationalism bit) can offer some guidelines for a European one.

To CesareBorgia I believe that the Soviet Union did retain the capitalist mode of production, although they went much much much further than Chavez has. In any case I do not believe your revolutionary piety is a very pragmatic or helpful stance.

[Old Mole]

I would argue Chavez is a military populist with nationalist leanings a bit like Juan Peron. That he flirts with both Venezuelan and foreign leftists with some success only shows how hopelessly lost much of the so-called left has become.

[Jose Gracchus]

To InformCandidate, note that I say "in the abscence of revolutionary will." I am not really arguing about socialism, yes of course it would be preferable, but it is not on the table. However I do believe that there is space for a "populist" left program in Europe, especially in light of the austerity measures. And I believe that the Chavista program (not the nationalism bit) can offer some guidelines for a European one.

To CesareBorgia I believe that the Soviet Union did retain the capitalist mode of production, although they went much much much further than Chavez has. In any case I do not believe your revolutionary piety is a very pragmatic or helpful stance.

Revolutionary politics is not about empty calls for "revolution." Would "left-populism" result in higher living standards for the lower strata? Urban poor? I don't know - left-populist politics are left for left-populists. The task of communists is not to support this or that wing of the "progressive" bourgeoisie in its craft of acquiring the elective share of capitalist state power. It is to aid the struggles of the working-class and to join with it in advocating a communist program. But this is all something to come organically out of class struggles, not something to be crafted in the abstract and then imparted upon people.

You're thinking of magic imaginary governments. Don't. Think instead of how, in concrete terms what is the condition of working people, and the kind of struggles and the extent of class attacks upon them come about and are occurring. If/when/where class struggle emerges, you will be able to identify those who are for the independence of the working class, and struggling to defend its interests.

[syndicat]

i would agree with OldMole that Venezuela is an example of authoritarian populism. A good comparison would be the "socialist" period of revolutionary nationalism in Mexico under General Lazaro Cardenas in the '30s. A lot of "socialist" and "anti-imperialst" rhetoric then. but no real threat to Mexican capitalism.

e.g. one of the wealthiest people in Venezuela owns the TV station that was competing with RCTV, and he picked up the audience of RCTV after its license was not renewed. Huge gain for his advertizing revenues. Since then he's muted his criticisms of Chavez.

Chavez via PDVSA has allowed huge numbers of "mixed" public/private exploitation of oil and coal resources in Venezuela...this is a partial re-privatization of energy. Many of the precedents for the programs of Chavez can be found in the Democratic Action populist governments in the '40s and '60s and '70s (when oil was nationalized).

the American ambassador to Venezuela says "You should watch what Chavez does, not what he says."

[RadioRaheem84]

Yes, but while all of this is true, I think it points to the larger attempt by the Chave z administration to create a dual system which he thinks can compete with the bourgoise.

There is a parallel economy running in complete opposition to the capitalism of the old ruling class.

I don't know if Chavez thinks they can co-exist together or if he thinks that the new economy will win out in this competitive project or what?

But to make a point, Chavez represents something different than just your average nationalist bourgoise.

[el_chavista]

I am confused. May the term "state capitalism" refer both to fascism and "USSR socialism"? What's more: Isn't the State a representative and administrator of capitalists' interests in a bourgoise economic-social regime?

Anyhow, given the neo-liberal policy of post cold war imperialism, any thing regulating the free market may be considered "leftist": reformist social-democracy, keynesianism, populism. Let alone thirdworldism! Bolivarianism is also the "anti-imperialistic" thought from the second and third decades of the 19th century by the independence's hero Simón Bolívar: he early realized the hazardous aspects of gringo expansionism against our América.

When he was young (1970s), Chávez himself was a leftist militant in a faction that divided from the Partido Comunista de Venezuela: the Partido de la Revolución Venezolana. As the PCV stuck with the international relations with the CPSU, the PRV got to develope its own revolutionary and economic policies: "Bolivarian Marxism-Leninism" and "oil-socialism", respectively. These ideas fell into oblivion as the guerrillas were defeated and after a two-decade decadency of the left passed by, but are the basis of the petty-bourgoise-socialist rhetoric of Chávez.

You know how a Bonaparteist government "staying above" the social classes moves from the support of one class to another, trying to survive the class struggle as an "independant" superstruture. But the local bourgeoisie has an unconditional commitment with the world finantial capital. Since long the local bourgeoisie is rallying an investment strike. On the other hand, imperialist interests are waiting for the local bourgeoisie to accomplish his handing over of the Venezuelan economic resources to the free market.

It is unlikely that neo-liberal imperialism would ever make a commitment with a thirdworldist movement as the Bolivarian movement. This would lead, later or sooner, to a final imperialism / thirdworldism's confrontation.

[syndicat]

Yes, but while all of this is true, I think it points to the larger attempt by the Chave z administration to create a dual system which he thinks can compete with the bourgoise.

There is a parallel economy running in complete opposition to the capitalism of the old ruling class.



where is this "parallel economy"? what does it consist of?

[RadioRaheem84]

where is this "parallel economy"? what does it consist of?

http://monthlyreview.org/2007/09/01/dual-power-in-the-venezuelan-revolution

Here is one article, but there was an even better one that described the various co-ops, communal councils, etc. as being an oppositional economy to the ruling class.

[syndicat]

but what power do these "communal councils" actually have? do they have any independence from the Chavista party? Also, I have heard reports that resources available to a communal council shrivels up if it takes a stand not approved of by the Chavista apparatus.

as to coops, they used sometimes used to create a more precarious, lower paid workforce and destroy union rights. For example, cleaning at hospitals has been contracted out to "cooperatives" of cleaners who are often the former employees. And now they no longer have the benefits and rights they had as employees.

meanwhile, at the state owned companies the Chavez government has refused to negotiate new contracts with the unions. there have been major protest marches of health workers and others who demand they be allowed to negotiate new contracts.

meanwhile officials of the Chavez government have made anti-union statements, saying that unions are incompatible with socialism.

at the state oil company the left opposition in the union (Trotskyists, anarchists, and other left socialists) has been trying for some time now to have new elections of union representatives. they put in petitions five times and the government denied all of these petitions. the current leader is considered out of touch by the rank and file but he's a Chavista so the government wants him in control. i found this out from their lawyer who i interviewed.

at the Metro in Caracas the workers, who are militant, had negotiated a new contract. but Chavez didn't like the gains they'd won and demanded that they back down. he threatened to bring in the army to run the trains if they didn't.

how does this approach towards labor unions encouragement the development from below of an independent labor movement? well, it can't.

The Chavez government takes basically a clientelist approach...which is typical of Latin American populism. that is, they use subsididies and benefits distributed to select groups as a way of buying loyalty and building up masses who can be called out in demos or mobilizations to support the lider maximo.

there are hundreds of former military officers throughout many positions in the government, at both the national and local levels in Venezuela. the officers corps are a classic bureaucratic class element, and Latin American populism has traditionally originated from the middle classes, and often from the officers in the military.

i know that Monthly Review has been encouraging this "dual power from above" approach for awhile. but it's highly unrealistic. a new system has to be built by an independent working class mass movement. it can't be conjured into existence by the state bureaucracy and military officers.

[RadioRaheem84]

So what you're saying is essentially that the left wing opposition is feeling the brunt of Chavism which is in favor of having the State in charge of economic affairs? Of course, you're right and it represents the main issue holding the Bolivarian Revolution from further implementing socialism.

What we are dealing with is small A authoritarianism from the Chavez administrate ion and it's over zealous attempt to maintain the Bolivarian Revolution, even with opposition from below. I still take the MR line that opposition to state bureaucracy should come from the power below, while still being somewhat supportive of the administration for fear of rightist opportunism.

[el_chavista]

Chávez acts as a utopian socialist doing experiments, like turning a private factory into a cooperative. The communal power is just another branch of the state power, with one vote in the federal council.

The idea of "oil-socialism" is revisionist. It's about considering the scarce development of the national economy and the social classes in a country which depends on a huge oil income. For the Chavezism, it is enough just using the oil industry surplus to begin paying the "social debt" to the poor masses, so you don't have to deal yet with a general expropriation of the bourgeoisie.

The nationalizations are related to:
-basic and key industries (so you can control the production is actually supplied to the inner market) like steel and cement; -enterprises with monopolistic issues (like chemicals for the agrarian sector)
-and landlords' huge estates.

According to Chavist bureaucrats, there is no need to abolish "productive private property", that is, enterprises doing their economic thing without intervening in politics (or else they would be nationalized). And they still are waiting for the "patriotic" bourgeois to join them in developing the economy.

His only unquestionable great did is that Chávez's reformist populism moves the masses.

[JustMovement]

Conflating Chavez with Peron is ludicrous. It is not socialism,fine, but his so-called authoritarianism would not be looked at twice if it came from his right-wing predecessors. He nationalised the oil industry, and since a bulk of the nations revenue is derived from oil this represents a big step forward. Objectively there have been big gains in the illiteracy levels, poverty, minimum wage, etc. The creation of the communal councils, for all the problems associated with party control of funding, is an interesting development. There is a growing land reform program, and an increase in coops and worker controlled firms. Why ignore these achievements of the working class? It is also important to note that the left opposition is marginal, and that if suppourt shifts it will go to the bourgeois opposition.

How does this relate to Europe? Well it is not an issue of "fantasy" movements, the truth is there is a growing (who knows for how long though?) anti-capitalist sentiment that is being channeled not in revolutionary leftist parties, but in broad anti-austerity campaigns (UK-uncut style), in trade unions (look at the recently announced public transport strikes), and in the student movement. The issue now is to frame this disconent in some sort of unified and coherent program, and this is where lessons can be learned from the PSUV experience. (as opposed to fruitless arguments over how fascist Chavez is)

[syndicat]

Conflating Chavez with Peron is ludicrous. It is not socialism,fine, but his so-called authoritarianism would not be looked at twice if it came from his right-wing predecessors. He nationalised the oil industry, and since a bulk of the nations revenue is derived from oil this represents a big step forward.

you have apparently little knowledge of Venezuela's history. the oil industry was nationalized by Accion Democratica in 1976. Chavez has been going in the opposite direction: he's been allowing the creation of quite a few "mixed" companies partly owned by big multinationals, partly by the state, to do oil and coal development projects. Chevron is quite bullish on the situation in Venezuela.



Objectively there have been big gains in the illiteracy levels, poverty, minimum wage, etc. The creation of the communal councils, for all the problems associated with party control of funding, is an interesting development. There is a growing land reform program, and an increase in coops and worker controlled firms. Why ignore these achievements of the working class?

how are these "achievements of the working class" if they're imposed top-down, by a state in which hundreds of army officers occupy many posts?

the form of socalled "worker control" is sometimes just a Toyotaist form of participation in a process controlled from above, as is done in various corporations.



It is also important to note that the left opposition is marginal, and that if suppourt shifts it will go to the bourgeois opposition.



this is just the "you're with us or against us" mentality cultivated by Chavez and his regime. It's a form of authoritarianism because it de-legitimizes any independent movement not controlled from above.

and actually the popular social movements in Venezuela in recent years have begun to develop more independence and a critical eye towards Chavez.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The Chavez government takes basically a clientelist approach...which is typical of Latin American populism. that is, they use subsidies and benefits distributed to select groups as a way of buying loyalty and building up masses who can be called out in demos or mobilizations to support the lider maximo [...] Latin American populism has traditionally originated from the middle classes, and often from the officers in the military.

In situations with proletarian demographic minorities such "clientelism" based on peasant patrimonialism (including the personality of El Comandante) isn't always a bad thing. The question is, of course, what are the proletarian demographics in Venezuela like?


A new system has to be built by an independent working class mass movement. it can't be conjured into existence by the state bureaucracy and military officers.

In situations with proletarian demographic minorities, two new systems have to be built; only one has to be built by workers taking political power.


the form of socalled "worker control" is sometimes just a Toyotaist form of participation in a process controlled from above, as is done in various corporations.

Both "workers control" and "workers self-management" tend to be quite economistic.