Chávez Responds to Workers’ Protests, Promises Historic New Labour Law

[Die Neue Zeit]

http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/6629



By RACHAEL BOOTHROYD

Caracas, November 13th 2011 (Venezuelanalysis.com) – Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez pledged to enact a new labour law this Thursday, as workers took to the streets of Caracas demanding “revolutionary” legislation to further advance the workers’ control project and improve working conditions.

Speaking to hundreds of workers at the closing ceremony for the Countryside, City and Sea Workers Socialist Central Congress, Chávez stated that he would create a “truly revolutionary and socialist labour law” before workers’ day next year on May 1st.

“This is definitely a debt owed to the people, to the workers, by the revolution” said Chávez, who will approve the law through the 18-month law-decree powers granted to him by the National Assembly in December 2010.

“This is part of the acceleration process for making the transition from an undeveloped and dependent capitalist model, which we are living at the moment, to a socialist model, equal to the dreams, hopes and historic struggles of the people” he said.

The Venezuelan Head of state also indicated that the law would be drafted through a direct consultation process with the Venezuelan people and workers.

“We are going to work following the strategic norm of a national debate. We are not going to pull a law out from under our sleeve, like they did in 1997, straight from under the sleeve of the International Monetary Fund (IMF)” said Chávez.

Despite this, there is division amongst the workers’ camp, with some organisations such as the Venezuelan Communist Party (PCV) and the National Workers’ Union (UNETE) publically declaring that they want the law to be approved following a widespread debate at the Venezuelan National Assembly as opposed to via presidential decree.

“For the law to be passed, it is absolutely indispensable that a debate takes place at the heart of the National Assembly and the working class,” said Pedro Eusse, National Secretary for the Workers and Union Movement in the PCV.

Workers Demand “Revolutionary” Law

Workers and unions such as UNETE have been mobilising since 2003 for the constitution of a new labour law. Despite regular protests and marches, plans to overhaul existing legislation have been consistently held up in the National Assembly (AN).

Frustrations came to a head in the days preceding the congress, as some workers’ organisations petitioned Chávez to bypass the AN and use his decree powers to push through the new law. On the same day as Chavez’s announcement, over 2,000 workers attended a march convened by the National Workers’ Union (UNETE) in Caracas.

“We are marching for a new and revolutionary labour law...we, the workers’ councils, are also marching to demand that the National Assembly begin a discussion with regard to the Special Law for Socialist Workers’ Councils,” said Adelaida Seipa of the Workers’ Councils Platform to Venezuelanalysis.

Seipa pointed out that in July, the workers’ movement handed over more than 52,000 signatures to the AN in support of both legal projects, but that a discussion had still not taken place.

“We don’t want reform, we want a new labour law that improves labour conditions within the framework of the construction of socialism. We don’t just want to patch (the law) up, we want a new law that comes from the bases, the workers” she added.

Socialist Workers’ Councils are currently being formed throughout Venezuela, with some already having been functioning for a number of months. Independent of unions, the councils are organisations of popular power through which labourers can effectively organise and play a protagonistic role in the running of their companies through their participation in the productive, administrative and management processes at their places of work.

Initially proposed to the AN in 2007 by the Venezuelan Communist Party (PCV), the Special Law of Socialist Workers’ Councils would consolidate these collectives as a legal instrument through which to organise the nation’s workplaces and establish the conditions to deepen workers’ control.

If the law is passed, workers hope to establish a council in every workplace in the country, an initiative that they see as the first stage in dismantling the exploitative social relations of the capitalist system.

Caldera’s Law

Workers have hailed as a historic victory the announcement that a new law will be enacted after many years of mobilisation to replace Venezuela’s current labour legislation, commonly referred to as the “Caldera Law”. Decreed in 1997 by then president Rafael Caldera under considerable pressure from the IMF, the 1997 law eliminated many legal requirements for employers, such as that of severance pay and extra compensation for unfair dismissal.

During his speech, president Chávez said that one of the central goals of the new legislation would be to reinstate these requirements and resources, which he said had been expropriated by the Venezuelan oligarchy.

“That is what the AD (Democratic Action) and Copei (Christian Democrat Party) parties did. That is what the Fourth Republic (1958-1998) did. They looted the people, they robbed the workers in order to meet the demands of a mandate from the International Monetary Fund, international imperialism and the national bourgeoisie” said Chávez.

Chávez estimates that this mandate has robbed workers of over 100 billion dollars since 1997, a debt which he said would be addressed and paid back in full to workers through the new law. According to the president, new legislation should create a “cumulative system,” which recognises how long the worker has been employment with the company, as well as conduct a “retroactive calculation” of severance pay, based on the employee’s salary at the time of dismissal.

“It is about doing justice, even though the fiscal burden may be large,” he said.

Workers reacted with jubilation upon hearing Chavez’s announcement, although some sectors are concerned that they have still received no concrete answer from the government with regard to the Special Law of Socialist Workers’ Councils. In July, the worker’s movement vowed to keep mobilising until the AN set a date for a discussion of the law.

“We’re prepared to go to a national referendum,” stated Seipa, who reiterated that the workers’ movement would continue to organise until the law is passed.

[Skammunist]

I'm carefully optimistic about this, and I think his intentions for the most part are in line with the workers of Venezuela. While it does seem a bit reformist, worker's councils everywhere in the country seems like a huge step in the right direction.

Does anyone think that this is a viable strategy to socialism? I'm not so sure that reform can give us the end result that we seek, but I welcome whatever we get on the way. I just hope that Chavez doesn't become the next Allende. If Venezuela does become socialist however, I do believe that the US will attempt a coup. When that happens, I hope he takes the revolutionary route and we can prevent another 9/11.

[mrmikhail]

I'm carefully optimistic about this, and I think his intentions for the most part are in line with the workers of Venezuela. While it does seem a bit reformist, worker's councils everywhere in the country seems like a huge step in the right direction.

Does anyone think that this is a viable strategy to socialism? I'm not so sure that reform can give us the end result that we seek, but I welcome whatever we get on the way. I just hope that Chavez doesn't become the next Allende. If Venezuela does become socialist however, I do believe that the US will attempt a coup. When that happens, I hope he takes the revolutionary route and we can prevent another 9/11.

The US already attempted a coup in 2002 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Venezuelan_coup_d'%C3%A9tat_attempt) which ended in utter failure due to workers coming out in force to save Chavez.

I personally feel that this is a big step by Comrade Chavez for further socialising Venezuela, and do believe this will further lead to the end result that is sought after.

[North Star]

The law is obviously a good idea and good timing. We don't know the truth of Chavez's health. Right leaning types in Latin America say he's dying, I wouldn't go that far but the health issue is unresolved. There are also elections in 2012, Chavez has shown he is vulnerable when he strays off course, the referendum he lost is a good case of this. Abstentions from his base caused him to lose. After what seemed like going off track and making deals with Columbia, Chavez is going forward again and the Venezuelan workers are still with him. Should there be some kind of funny business around the election or if Chavez were to die or be unable to serve as President, the worker councils could also serve in a dual power situation. In an election year with such a revolutionary initiative, the right will be fighting back and screaming dictatorship.

[ВАЛТЕР]

Chavez is generally good at listening to the people and from what I've heard he enjoys a great amount of support from the working class.

Also I had a conversation in the US with a girl from Venezuela who HATED Chavez. I asked "why do you hate him? From what I hear he does good for the people." She responded with "Yeah, but he is only good for the poor people." I laughed and said "well that means he's good for most of the people."
Turns out her father was some bourgeoisie asshat who fled Venezuela when Chavez came into power because of his pro-worker policies.

That's when he pretty much got my support.

"Viva Presidente!":lol:

[Leo]

And of course then there is the question of whether Chavez actually is on the side of the workers, or is just a representative of the "new" Bolibourgeoisie.

A couple of recent articles from real communists in Venezuela: http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/201111/4575/bolivarian-socialism-leftist-version-wild-capitalism http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/201111/4576/workers-against-socialist-guayana-plan

[El Louton]

I suggest watching the John Pilger documentary 'The War on Democracy' It's brilliant and is from a leftist perspective about America's involvement in Latin America.

[Belleraphone]

Chavez is generally good at listening to the people and from what I've heard he enjoys a great amount of support from the working class.

Also I had a conversation in the US with a girl from Venezuela who HATED Chavez. I asked "why do you hate him? From what I hear he does good for the people." She responded with "Yeah, but he is only good for the poor people." I laughed and said "well that means he's good for most of the people."
Turns out her father was some bourgeoisie asshat who fled Venezuela when Chavez came into power because of his pro-worker policies.

That's when he pretty much got my support.

"Viva Presidente!":lol:

Haha, I'm from Venezuela and that is so true. I had an experience just like you did. One girl was complaining to my US history teacher about Chavez and her complaint was "There was a giant Pepsi logo that I could see from my house and Chavez ordered it to be taken down."
No question that Chavez is improving the country for the Venezuelans. I used to go to a tutor who had a poor house (I was lower-middle class in Venezuela and she was poor) and taught me how to count and read and write (Spanish, my first language). Well there was a picture of me in front of her house and it looked pretty bad. The house itself hasn't improved but now you can see wires behind her house because she has electricity, there's actually a road there and pipes too for the water. In that town he's also established three clinics, although now there's only one. This is because he established way too many clinics and a lot of them weren't serving anyone for a lot of the day.

It's ironic how the conservatives complain about Chavez being socialist even though both the private AND public industry has grown under his leadership. So he's opening up the market and providing social services, who could hate him for that? :laugh:

My one complaint though is that he accuses people that don't support him of being unpatriotic. Most of his opponents are right wing oil barons, but i feel like post-2001 America whenever I go over there. I hope a more libertarian left-wing guy replaces Chavez, he's consolidating too much power. I don't think Chavez will abuse his power that much but I'm worried about his successor.

[mrmikhail]

My one complaint though is that he accuses people that don't support him of being unpatriotic. Most of his opponents are right wing oil barons, but i feel like post-2001 America whenever I go over there. I hope a more libertarian left-wing guy replaces Chavez, he's consolidating too much power. I don't think Chavez will abuse his power that much but I'm worried about his successor.

His consolidation of power, as of now, is merely to further the revolution for the betterment of the workers, such as this new labour bill he is going to enact. The parliament has been standing in it's way for years, but now that he has permission to rule by decree for a time he can finally get everything in order that needs to be, I do not worry the least that he is going to abuse his power.

A side note on the deals with Colombia, Venezuela gets a large amount of it's food from Colombia, so dealing with them is not really a choice but rather a necessity. So I wouldn't take it as being friendly, he is merely securing his people's main food importer rather than trying to be a true friend to an american neo-colony.


And as is noted in the "War on Democracy" documentary, the middle and upper classes live in fear that Chavez will nationalise all of their property, and the fact that he is standing in the way of their lucrative contracts with US companies to exploit the national resources of Venezuela at the expense of it's workers is another big thing.

[Le Rouge]

A side note on the deals with Colombia, Venezuela gets a large amount of it's food from Colombia,

If western countries manage (by any ways) to convinct Colombia to put an embargo on Venezuela, that means bad news. People will probably starve and those dying people will be added to the communists/socialists death toll.

[Ocean Seal]

If western countries manage (by any ways) to convinct Colombia to put an embargo on Venezuela, that means bad news. People will probably starve and those dying people will be added to the communists/socialists death toll.
The quite fortunate thing about this though, is that Chavez has shit tons of oil which he sells pretty cheap. An embargo wouldn't be good for the US economy.

[Le Rouge]

The quite fortunate thing about this though, is that Chavez has shit tons of oil which he sells pretty cheap. An embargo wouldn't be good for the US economy.

Does this reminds you of someone? Someone who had shit tons of oil in his country.

Hint : He's dead by now.

[mrmikhail]

The quite fortunate thing about this though, is that Chavez has shit tons of oil which he sells pretty cheap. An embargo wouldn't be good for the US economy.

Indeed a fact, Venezuela is the main oil supplier to the US if I remember correctly, so they will not move to enact any embargoes or try to get their neo-colonies to do so either, due to fear that Venezuela will in turn place an embargo on America.

[mrmikhail]

Does this reminds you of someone? Someone who had shit tons of oil in his country.

Hint : He's dead by now.

This much is true, but Venezuela has strong military ties to Russia (and an alliance) so America's hands are tied when it comes to Venezuela, their coup attempt failed as did their sabotage attempts in strike provocations so, yeah...

[Ocean Seal]

Does this reminds you of someone? Someone who had shit tons of oil in his country.

Hint : He's dead by now.


This much is true, but Venezuela has strong military ties to Russia (and an alliance) so America's hands are tied when it comes to Venezuela, their coup attempt failed as did their sabotage attempts in strike provocations so, yeah...

I don't think its so much ties to Russia. Its possible that the US could invade Venezuela, but an embargo is out of the question. And if the US does invade Venezuela, they have to consider the monetary consequences that come with it. It would be a rather large investment, and I'm not sure if the US wants to undertake that.

[mrmikhail]

I don't think its so much ties to Russia. Its possible that the US could invade Venezuela, but an embargo is out of the question. And if the US does invade Venezuela, they have to consider the monetary consequences that come with it. It would be a rather large investment, and I'm not sure if the US wants to undertake that.

The money involved is also a big issue, I give you that, I highly doubt the US public would support another costly war, given that Venezuela is armed with top of the line Russian military equipment as opposed to the antique Soviet equipment Iraq had. But Russia I feel would play a major factor in the US decisions on the matter, they have a treaty with Venezuela, as they do with Cuba and technically North Korea to protect them from such...so I gotta say the US knows this and wouldn't risk any chance of war with Russia.

[Belleraphone]

His consolidation of power, as of now, is merely to further the revolution for the betterment of the workers, such as this new labour bill he is going to enact. The parliament has been standing in it's way for years, but now that he has permission to rule by decree for a time he can finally get everything in order that needs to be, I do not worry the least that he is going to abuse his power.

A side note on the deals with Colombia, Venezuela gets a large amount of it's food from Colombia, so dealing with them is not really a choice but rather a necessity. So I wouldn't take it as being friendly, he is merely securing his people's main food importer rather than trying to be a true friend to an american neo-colony.


And as is noted in the "War on Democracy" documentary, the middle and upper classes live in fear that Chavez will nationalise all of their property, and the fact that he is standing in the way of their lucrative contracts with US companies to exploit the national resources of Venezuela at the expense of it's workers is another big thing.
Dude, have you even been there? I like Chavez to but you have to realize the consequences of his actions. The position of the president is extremely powerful. That much power in one persons hand is dangerous. Obviously Chavez is doing way more good than harm, but even he's abused his power like arresting the opposition leader.

[Jose Gracchus]

The US already attempted a coup in 2002 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Venezuelan_coup_d'%C3%A9tat_attempt) which ended in utter failure due to workers coming out in force to save Chavez.

I personally feel that this is a big step by Comrade Chavez for further socialising Venezuela, and do believe this will further lead to the end result that is sought after.

Jesus. Trotskyism has really fallen a long way. I cannot see how any consistent person could reconcile their support for Chavez's vulgar populist 21st c. reincarnation of caudillo politics with anything like upholding the principles of Lenin's party of 1917.

[Susurrus]

I need to do some more research on Chavez. From what I can see, he seems to be attempting to orchestrate a slow overthrow of himself in favor of worker's councils, etc. His heart's probably in the right place.

Also, he's known to be a reader of Kropotkin, so perhaps this will end with libertarian socialism.

[mrmikhail]

Dude, have you even been there? I like Chavez to but you have to realize the consequences of his actions. The position of the president is extremely powerful. That much power in one persons hand is dangerous. Obviously Chavez is doing way more good than harm, but even he's abused his power like arresting the opposition leader.

I have not, but I have met with his party, and several other parties including the right wingers at a conference they held in DC.

I do not see his power as a threat, he has made it clear it is only a temporary measure to get matters of utter importance passed (like this labour act) without the hold up of the parliament, which stalls any development at all. I fully believe he is working on a slow devolution of power from a centralised state to a libertarian socialist one.

and @Jose Gracchus, where did I say it was like Lenin's party of 1917? The Bolivian revolution is far different than any other revolution of the past, and one cannot look to the past for modern/future revolutions. You must be modern thinking and even a bit pragmatic with the matter of revolution now...the world isn't the same as it was in either 1848 or 1917 so we cannot take the same approach today as they did back then.

[Belleraphone]

I have not, but I have met with his party, and several other parties including the right wingers at a conference they held in DC.

I do not see his power as a threat, he has made it clear it is only a temporary measure to get matters of utter importance passed (like this labour act) without the hold up of the parliament, which stalls any development at all. I fully believe he is working on a slow devolution of power from a centralised state to a libertarian socialist one.

....He's arrested the opposition party leader and has put restrictions on speech. http://www.hrw.org/news/2010/12/22/venezuela-legislative-assault-free-speech-civil-society

[mrmikhail]

....He's arrested the opposition party leader and has put restrictions on speech. http://www.hrw.org/news/2010/12/22/venezuela-legislative-assault-free-speech-civil-society

The same can be said of Lenin and the Bolsheviks during the Russian Civil War, it is a measure of protecting the worker gains he is making, and will later relax restrictions....and have you seen Venezuelan news? and how they make the most outlandish claims ever against Chavez, I recommend watching "The War on Democracy" if you haven't, shows really good examples of it.

[Belleraphone]

I know exactly the Venezuelan propaganda, don't try to lecture me on that. But that gives Chavez no right to censor anything he doesn't like. Nor does it give him the right to arrest opposition leaders. Venezuela is a democracy and should be treated as such.

[mrmikhail]

I know exactly the Venezuelan propaganda, don't try to lecture me on that. But that gives Chavez no right to censor anything he doesn't like. Nor does it give him the right to arrest opposition leaders. Venezuela is a democracy and should be treated as such.

As I stated, Lenin and the Bolsheviks did the same thing in 1917, to protect the revolution from counter-revolutionaries. If you know what you are doing is supported by the workers, and you know that you will be torn apart by right wing propaganda for doing it, then I fully support suppressing the sabotage attempt.

[Belleraphone]

And do you know if Venezuelans support the censorship? Chavez is violating multiple international treaties that he agreed to. Also you might want to stop using Lenin as an example seeing as how the USSR turned out the way it did.

[mrmikhail]

And do you know if Venezuelans support the censorship? Chavez is violating multiple international treaties that he agreed to. Also you might want to stop using Lenin as an example seeing as how the USSR turned out the way it did.

This was not on the account of Lenin, he died before his aims were able to be carried out, and the party then ignored his warnings about Stalin, and his support for Trotsky. But considering the media is so controlled by the upper two classes of the Venezuelan population, I find it hard to believe the workers of Venezuela care of the media of the right wingers is censored....

[Belleraphone]

Lenin centralized the state and gave the party so much power that when Stalin took over he was able to do whatever he wanted. Lenin's heart may have been in the right place but when managing a post-revolutionary state (Really there should be no state after the revolution) you must always assume that your next successor will be corrupt and give the people enough power to take his power away. As far as I know, Lenin did not make implementations for a more democratic place.

Everyone knows the majority of the Venezuelan media is bullshit. Democracy Now in Spanish is more respected among the working class than most major media institutions. The media in Venezuela is literally like Fox News, causing hysteria whatever they talk about. However if a leftist were to criticize Chavez on the media, there is a possibility it would be censored. I have talked with Venezuela's working class and those living in the barrios (really bad homes), most of them believe in free speech and free press.

[mrmikhail]

Lenin centralized the state and gave the party so much power that when Stalin took over he was able to do whatever he wanted. Lenin's heart may have been in the right place but when managing a post-revolutionary state (Really there should be no state after the revolution) you must always assume that your next successor will be corrupt and give the people enough power to take his power away. As far as I know, Lenin did not make implementations for a more democratic place.

Everyone knows the majority of the Venezuelan media is bullshit. Democracy Now in Spanish is more respected among the working class than most major media institutions. The media in Venezuela is literally like Fox News, causing hysteria whatever they talk about. However if a leftist were to criticize Chavez on the media, there is a possibility it would be censored. I have talked with Venezuela's working class and those living in the barrios (really bad homes), most of them believe in free speech and free press.

The party of Lenin was actually quite democratic, so much so that little could be decided on, it was split with the left (opposition by Trotsky), the centre, and the right. It was only Stalin's political moves which framed up the various factions and replaced them with his cronies who'd do as he said.

This may well be the fact, but I do not see this as a major issue of the time, we shall see if it becomes one in the future. But I put my support behind Chavez and the Hands off Venezuela movement.

[Belleraphone]

I don't know much about the structure of the Bolshevik party to be honest, so I won't comment on that.

I support Chavez too and when I go on there on my next mission I will vote for him. But I'm just saying, Chavez is centralizing his power way too much. If he died right now, Jaua might not be as trustworthy. Liberty is just as important as socialism.

[mrmikhail]

I don't know much about the structure of the Bolshevik party to be honest, so I won't comment on that.

I support Chavez too and when I go on there on my next mission I will vote for him. But I'm just saying, Chavez is centralizing his power way too much. If he died right now, Jaua might not be as trustworthy. Liberty is just as important as socialism.

This I agree with, liberty is intertwined with socialism. But in certain cases I support censorship as a necessity for various reasons (like the risk of a counter revolution)

and I do hope his plan to devolve power happens before he dies, I don't want to see Venezuela to become the next Soviet-Stalin style dictatorship

[Die Neue Zeit]

There are good ways to centralize power and there are bad ways. Bad ways include crude attempts to address the mass media issue. Good ways, however, include eroding bourgeois federalism by elevating central authority.


http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/201111/4575/bolivarian-socialism-leftist-version-wild-capitalism


According to the ECOLA and the International Labour Organisation, wages of Venezuelan workers have fallen, in real terms, more than 8% in the first 3 months of this year compared to the same period in 2010. As in many other countries precarious, temporary employment has increased in the public and the private sector; according to one recent study made by the Catholic university “Andres-Bello”, 82.6% of the Venezuelan workforce has a precarious job.

What's with the ICC's fad with "precarious"?


At the social level, even the “Missions”, the social organisations invented by Chavism to give the illusion of a “conquest of socialism” through distributing crumbs to the most poverty-stricken sectors, have been reduced.

The initial strategic mistake re. the missions was to put them under the PDVSA, as opposed to directly under the Movement for the Fifth Republic and later the PSUV.


In Venezuela, the proletariat in the oil industry, which had suffered the blow of almost 20,000 lost jobs in 2003

Covering for the busted management "strike" and its fellow travellers, are we? :rolleyes:


http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/201111/4576/workers-against-socialist-guayana-plan


finally, that “we can humanise the working day and reduce hours, that we can overcome the division of labour and despotism in the factory”. The reality of this humanisation is a cocktail of jailings, trials, tear gas, live ammunition, injuries and deaths, all carried out by armed bands sent in to terrorise the workers.

I think this article has blown things out of proportion and also gone off tangent by not sticking to the topics of the working day, division of labour, and "despotism in the factory."

[Jose Gracchus]

I fully believe he is working on a slow devolution of power from a centralised state to a libertarian socialist one.

Great Man-ism, the rejection of the necessity of political revolution (necessarily violent, involving the destruction of the old state apparatus and the expropriation and liquidation of capital) in favor of a kind of populist gradualism, the necessity of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and even socialism in one country.

Literally everything posited here is oriented in stark antagonism to the entire corpus of the Marxian tradition.


and @Jose Gracchus, where did I say it was like Lenin's party of 1917?

I presumed Trotskyism's entire claim to political legitimacy is premised on there being at least some novel political innovation, irreplaceable in the context of overthrowing capitalism, from 1917.

Apparently rhetoric now permits an infinitude of opportunism, though.


The Bolivian revolution is far different than any other revolution of the past, and one cannot look to the past for modern/future revolutions.

In what sense is the working-class the active agent of social change in Venezuela in any sense, and where is any evidence that Chavez's reformism is along a trajectory of class struggles which will move toward revolution against capitalism? What became of destroying the existing state apparatus?

Chavez's state is less 'progressive' in the way outlines by Trotsky and his immediate followers, than the nationalist regime of the 1970s. Chavez allows international oil majors a lot more fingers in the cookie jar than past populists, even. I suppose this matters not as long as he flatters leftists left in the dark since 1991.


You must be modern thinking and even a bit pragmatic with the matter of revolution now...the world isn't the same as it was in either 1848 or 1917 so we cannot take the same approach today as they did back then.

I am quite certain that there is no plausible way to stretch the Marxian concept of socialism, both as program and theory, to cover a populist army man from draping himself in anti-imperialist rhetoric and demagoguery such that he may transfer some of the oil revenue from the old rentier class to buy-out the urban poor in the classic Roman fashion (not a compliment, though a dyed-in-the-wool reactionary like DNZ sees virtue here), but mostly to line the pockets of his clique of favorites.

Chavez has used 'cooperativiziation' to remove the right to organize from many workers, to break movements, to transfer business risk from the state to workers. Its sad to see people a decade on still waiting for a nonexistent move to socialism by Chavez.

Wake up. Its never going to happen. Weimar Germany had 'councils' too. Big whoop.

[eyeheartlenin]

Everything that Jose Gracchus writes in his post in opposition to Chávez, is correct and to the point. Chávez worship is, by definition, opportunism, since Chávez is merely a bourgeois politician, a military man by profession, from whom revolutionary change is not to be expected.

The latest buzz, about Chávez' top-down "workers' councils," is such a joke. Workers forge their own revolutionary tools in the struggle; the recently granted "councils" will surely be completely controlled from Miraflores, Chávez' palace, like everything else in totally top-down chavismo.

Looking to Chávez to hand the workers a "revolution," is mistaken, because it ignores what Fred and Karl, as well as Lenin, held, which was first expressed in the Manifesto, that the proletariat cannot simply lay hold of the bourgeois state and wield it in their own interests. The exploiters' state has to be overthrown. And, obviously, that will never happen under Chávez' leadership, since the comandante really, really enjoys being head of precisely that bourgeois state. So when Jose G writes about "a nonexistent move to socialism by Chavez," that is totally on target. Chávez is to revolution what Milli Vanilli were to music.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Great Man-ism, the rejection of the necessity of political revolution (necessarily violent, involving the destruction of the old state apparatus and the expropriation and liquidation of capital) in favor of a kind of populist gradualism, the necessity of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and even socialism in one country.

He may reject it, but I don't reject the necessity of two stages.


In what sense is the working-class the active agent of social change in Venezuela in any sense, and where is any evidence that Chavez's reformism is along a trajectory of class struggles which will move toward revolution against capitalism?

To what extent do those directly engaged in productive work, those reproducing the labour-power for productive work, those retired from such tasks, etc. comprise the demographic majority of Venezuela's population? Oh, and yeah, there was the 2007 referendum.


(not a compliment, though a dyed-in-the-wool reactionary like DNZ sees virtue here)

Have left-com polemics come to this? :rolleyes:


Chavez has used 'cooperativiziation' to remove the right to organize from many workers, to break movements, to transfer business risk from the state to workers. Its sad to see people a decade on still waiting for a nonexistent move to socialism by Chavez.

Wake up. Its never going to happen. Weimar Germany had 'councils' too. Big whoop.

In the scope of immediate reforms, the "cooperativized" workers should push for nationalization.

[RED DAVE]

He may reject it, but I don't reject the necessity of two stages.Of course you don't because you've shown, over and over again, that basically you're a menshevik.


To what extent do those directly engaged in productive work, those reproducing the labour-power for productive work, those retired from such tasks, etc. comprise the demographic majority of Venezuela's population?Yeah, because if the working class is even one percentage point under 50%, we can't have a revolution, which, of course, is exactly the opposite of what the Bolsheviks believed and acted on.


Has left-com polemics come to this? :rolleyes:What it should come to for you is OI. :rolleyes:


In the scope of immediate reforms, the "cooperativized" workers should push for nationalization.Wow! Push how? Using what institutions? Are you calling on a bourgeois state to engage in revolutionary nationalization? Or are you perhaps using a transitional demand?

RED DAVE

[Jose Gracchus]

I think we should just all come to a common agreement not to acknowledge or participate in DNZ's egomania. Since he is only here to treat the board and its members as passive receptacles for his late-night creations with not a shred of good faith toward discussion or debate whatsoever, perhaps the general feeling of no feedback or satisfaction for trolling here would lead him to take his circus on the road.

[Luís Henrique]

Its possible that the US could invade Venezuela,

No, they cannot. The political and financial costs are prohibitive. Venezuela is not Libya, it is a established democracy under rule of law, and it has a rather popular government, not a tyrant hated and despised by everybody. The American States has to find allies within Venezuela, that can oust Chávez and realign the country to the US. Problem is, the allies that they have found so long are utterly incapable of winning elections and seem to be too incompetent to stage an effective coup d'etat either.

Luís Henrique

[pastradamus]

I think we should just all come to a common agreement not to acknowledge or participate in DNZ's egomania. Since he is only here to treat the board and its members as passive receptacles for his late-night creations with not a shred of good faith toward discussion or debate whatsoever, perhaps the general feeling of no feedback or satisfaction for trolling here would lead him to take his circus on the road.

A comment completely unwarranted. All discussion (that I have read from DNZ anyway) has been in good faith. He has as much of a right to debate and state his opinion on certain issue's as you have. Simply because you disagree with what he's saying dosent give you the right to make requests like this of the other members. He has contributed to the discussion and I see not a shread of evidence of him "trolling".

Keep it civilised people.

[pastradamus]

No, they cannot. The political and financial costs are prohibitive. Venezuela is not Libya, it is a established democracy under rule of law, and it has a rather popular government, not a tyrant hated and despised by everybody. The American States has to find allies within Venezuela, that can oust Chávez and realign the country to the US. Problem is, the allies that they have found so long are utterly incapable of winning elections and seem to be too incompetent to stage an effective coup d'etat either.
Luís Henrique

True enough. However they have sent billions of dollors of "military aid" to Colombia. Colombia being the strongest power in that immediate region. I believe they are going back to the tactics of the 60's & 70's here.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

This thread seems to be extracting some quite extreme opinions re: Chavez.

I'm no expert on his period of rule, nor of the social structure/economic & political history of Venezuela, but it seems to me that principled, critical left-wing support of Chavez (the key word here being critical!), in order to make sure that, once he's gone (as it seems unlikely that he will lead the working class to Socialism), there is not the danger of a new President being able to run roughshod over any gains made in the past decade or so.

In short, the left-wing should keep pushing for power to be moved from the President and national assembly to workers' councils, workplace councils and so on. Revolution can be a long process.

[IndependentCitizen]

I don't think its so much ties to Russia. Its possible that the US could invade Venezuela, but an embargo is out of the question. And if the US does invade Venezuela, they have to consider the monetary consequences that come with it. It would be a rather large investment, and I'm not sure if the US wants to undertake that.

Presidential election is coming up, and Obama needs more than "I killed Osama" under his belt to spice up the moronic electorate population who refuse to step out of mainstream politics...

[Die Neue Zeit]

This thread seems to be extracting some quite extreme opinions re: Chavez.

Perhaps that's because the article was ambiguous about emphasizing the worker protests over Chavez's reaction.

[eyeheartlenin]

Quote: Originally Posted by RedBrother
Its possible that the US could invade Venezuela,

No, they cannot. The political and financial costs are prohibitive. Venezuela is not Libya, it is a established democracy under rule of law, and it has a rather popular government, not a tyrant hated and despised by everybody. The American States has to find allies within Venezuela, that can oust Chávez and realign the country to the US. Problem is, the allies that they have found so long are utterly incapable of winning elections and seem to be too incompetent to stage an effective coup d'etat either.

Luís Henrique

There is absolutely no need for imperialism to invade Venezuela, since Chávez is a very reliable supplier of an awful lot of oil to the US, and also since Chávez has done absolutely nothing against US interests, that I can remember. What he has done is to act as an arbiter between classes and prevent the working class from taking matters into its own hands.

How many US enterprises in Venezuela have been seized, either by the workers themselves or by the Chávez regime? Exactly none that I can think of. It's not like Chávez is anything like the young Fidel of 1959-1961; on the contrary, he reliably supplies oceans of petroleum to imperialism during wartime.

Who knows what could happen, in the wake of a US invasion of Venezuela? It would be a very unpredictable situation; the combative Venezuelan working class would undoubtedly come out to the streets and act, as it did during the failed coup attempt. Far better for imperialism to leave its trustworthy trading partner Hugo Rafael Chávez, in charge in Caracas. His flatulent rhetoric is absolutely no threat to imperialism.

[black magick hustla]

i don't see what is so particular about the chavez regime. it seems to me to be that it is accomplishing the historic tasks of social democracy like the european countries did earlier, fueled by huge oil reserves. chavismo seems to "take care of its workers" because it can avoid the worst aspects of the crisis through their oceans of oil. european countries have really strong labor laws and bosses cant fire you just like that either. the only exceptional thing about chavismo is that it is able to strengthen the welfare state in a period of decline, but this is only because of the oil reserves. greece, for example, could never have a chavez.

[Jose Gracchus]

Open U.S. provocations toward Venezuela would surely strengthen Chavismo. However, the U.S. is more likely to use subversion and proxies and economic brinkmanship than direct provocations.

[Jose Gracchus]

Just because someone says something is a 'council' or a 'commune' or 'collectivized' doesn't make it so, and doesn't mean it is recognized by the class as an institution of its own.

[Luís Henrique]

There is absolutely no need for imperialism to invade Venezuela, since Chávez is a very reliable supplier of an awful lot of oil to the US, and also since Chávez has done absolutely nothing against US interests, that I can remember.

And so, how do we explain the open hostility of the American State against Chávez regime?


How many US enterprises in Venezuela have been seized, either by the workers themselves or by the Chávez regime?

How many US enterprises actually operate in Venezuela?


It's not like Chávez is anything like the young Fidel of 1959-1961; on the contrary, he reliably supplies oceans of petroleum to imperialism during wartime.

Fidel would have supplied the United States with sugar and tobacco too, if the US hadn't decided to boycott the new regime.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

i don't see what is so particular about the chavez regime. it seems to me to be that it is accomplishing the historic tasks of social democracy like the european countries did earlier, fueled by huge oil reserves.

There can't be anything like an "oil fueled social democracy"; social democracy relies on heavy industrialisation and imperialism.

Luís Henrique

[Jose Gracchus]

You don't think modern drilling, extracting, tanking, processing, refining, and shipping of petrochemicals qualifies as a major modern heavy industry? And where is this mandatory definition of social democracy? And where is the evidence it was authentically financed via 'imperialism' (or no doubt, 'superprofits')?

[Luís Henrique]

You don't think modern drilling, extracting, tanking, processing, refining, and shipping of petrochemicals qualifies as a major modern heavy industry?

No when it leads to utter deindustrialisation of the country, when it becomes an economic enclave, destroying anything else close to it.



And where is this mandatory definition of social democracy? And where is the evidence it was authentically financed via 'imperialism' (or no doubt, 'superprofits')?

Where are the social democracies outside Europe?

Luís Henrique

[Jose Gracchus]

No when it leads to utter deindustrialisation of the country, when it becomes an economic enclave, destroying anything else close to it.

So if 'heavy industrialization' does not produce the virtues predicted by Kautsky/Trotsky/Stalin, then it doesn't count as a heavy industry? On what basis are you establishing your particular definition as preferable, your 'ideal type' scenario as preferable as a device for understanding history?


Where are the social democracies outside Europe?

Luís Henrique

Again, this is circular reasoning. You think 'social democracy' as political practice and political project should be limited to the 'ideal type' of European regimes of the early 20th c. Simply re-stating your premise in different terms does not an argument make.

[Grigori]

I heard Chavez mobilized troops to deal with crime. Him letting the crime get out of hand in the first place seems to be ignored ( i don't dislike him, i just understand his methods. Pulling a Palpatine may help Venezuela in the long run)

[Die Neue Zeit]

There can't be anything like an "oil fueled social democracy"; social democracy relies on heavy industrialisation and imperialism.

Luís Henrique

I'm in the middle between the two of you. CPGB comrade Macnair asserted that Lenin's labour aristocracy stuff was wrong because of the existence of reformist parties in the Third World, like the Official Communist parties in India.

[black magick hustla]

There can't be anything like an "oil fueled social democracy"; social democracy relies on heavy industrialisation and imperialism.

Luís Henrique

venezuela is def. more industralized than early 20th century european social democracies. there is no latin american exceptionalism, the only difference is that leftism in latin america tends to acquire weird latin american shades like "caudillismo"

[Die Neue Zeit]

there is no latin american exceptionalism, the only difference is that leftism in latin america tends to acquire weird latin american shades like "caudillismo"

That's not unusual. Caudillismo is merely the Latin American incarnation of peasant patrimonialism elsewhere across the world.

[black magick hustla]

Where are the social democracies outside Europe?


virtually every country, barring the US that has a semifunctional welfare state has been affected by the ghost of social democracy. The specter of "laborism", "labor laws" etc all emerged from the same dynamic than social democracy. whether you want to call that social democracy or not that is your choice, but in my opinion, there is no such thing as specificities in world capitalism, and those who speak of them are one step away from opportunism. the partisans of chavez says he is exceptional and something unique. some of us know better however.

[eyeheartlenin]

And so, how do we explain the open hostility of the American State against Chávez regime?

How many US enterprises actually operate in Venezuela?

Fidel would have supplied the United States with sugar and tobacco too, if the US hadn't decided to boycott the new regime. Luís Henrique

Dear comrade Luís: When I wrote about "the young Fidel of 1959-1961," what I was thinking of, was the fact that Fidel had just led a revolution that overthrew exploiters' rule in Cuba, by defeating the army of the bourgeois state.

In contrast, Chávez presides over a bourgeois state, which will undoubtedly continue in existence for at least as long as Chávez is active. That's the difference between Fidel and Chávez: Fidel is a revolutionary.

As for the number of US enterprises in Venezuela, in the Irish TV documentary, "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised," early on, there is a shot from Caracas, where the camera pans to show a bunch of signs of big US companies that are active in the Venezuelan capital. So I think there must be some US economic penetration in Venezuela. If a US business in Venezuela was nationalized, then the owner must have been generously compensated for his loss, which is Chávez' practice in nationalizations.

[Spets]

Dear comrade Luís: When I wrote about "the young Fidel of 1959-1961," what I was thinking of, was the fact that Fidel had just led a revolution that overthrew exploiters' rule in Cuba, by defeating the army of the bourgeois state.

In contrast, Chávez presides over a bourgeois state, which will undoubtedly continue in existence for at least as long as Chávez is active, That's the difference between Fidel and Chávez: Fidel is a revolutionary.

As for the number of US enterprises in Venezuela, in the Irish TV documentary, "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised," early on, there is a shot from Caracas, where the camera pans to show a bunch of signs of big US companies that are active in the Venezuelan capital. So I think there must be some (and probably, a lot) of US economic penetration in Venezuela, and I do not remember reading about any nationalization of a US enterprise there.

On June 24, 2010, Venezuela announced the intention to nationalize oil drilling rigs belonging to the U.S. company Helmerich & Payne.

On October 25, 2010, Chavez announced that the government was nationalizing two U.S.-owned Owens-Illinois glass-manufacturing plants

[Jose Gracchus]

Yeah, and unlike the old populist regime, which conducted a strict national-oil-firm policy on oil production, Chavez's "21st century" version allows for 'public-private' partnerships which allow the penetration of Western capital. Shell is bullish on Venezuelan oil concessions.

[Luís Henrique]

I'm in the middle between the two of you. CPGB comrade Macnair asserted that Lenin's labour aristocracy stuff was wrong because of the existence of reformist parties in the Third World, like the Official Communist parties in India.

Oh, there certainly are reformist working class parties in the Third World, and some have even managed to win election and form governments, as for instance the Brazilian PT. What they cannot manage to do, at least not without breaking the current international division of labour, is to put up a welfare state comparable to that have characterised Europe from 1945 to about 1980-90.

Heck, even Europe can no longer afford such a thing, how would Venezuela?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

virtually every country, barring the US that has a semifunctional welfare state has been affected by the ghost of social democracy.

Pakistan? Thailand? Argentina? Uganda?

No, most of the world has never been affected by social democracy. Publicly acceptable discourse, maybe; but the guts of the economies of most of the world have never been touched by it.


The specter of "laborism", "labor laws" etc all emerged from the same dynamic than social democracy. whether you want to call that social democracy or not that is your choice, but in my opinion, there is no such thing as specificities in world capitalism, and those who speak of them are one step away from opportunism.

Of course there are specificities; what happens is that those specificities are all part of a single system. But no, the economies of Sweden and Tanzania are not the mirror of one another.


the partisans of chavez says he is exceptional and something unique. some of us know better however.

Well, he is exceptional and something unique. So are or were Thatcher, Papandreou, Pinochet or Sukarno, and even George Bush. So what? None of them, and neither Chávez, could, or can, even if they wished, depart from the capitalist reality that comforms their societies. Only the working class can do that, and even it, only on a planetary level (so no, the Venezolan working class cannot, alone and in isolation from the rest of the world, have its private socialist revolution, and if they try, we can look at what happened to the former Soviet Union to see what it is doomed to become).

And no, this is not because Chávez (or Allende, or Papandreou, or Castro, or whomever) is a traitor or is purposefully misleading the working class. The play is a tragedy, not a farce.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

So if 'heavy industrialization' does not produce the virtues predicted by Kautsky/Trotsky/Stalin, then it doesn't count as a heavy industry? On what basis are you establishing your particular definition as preferable, your 'ideal type' scenario as preferable as a device for understanding history?

No, it doesn't have anything to do with the virtues predicted by Kautsky or Trotsky, or with any prediction Stalin might have taken credit for, after having the actual predictor jailed, tortured, and executed.

It has to do with the particular position of a particular economy within the imperialist chain: some economies are at its center, and revolve around relative surplus value, and others are at its periphery, and revolve around absolute surplus value. How is any economy going to be a social democracy, if it relies on absolute surplus value to increase capital acumulation?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

venezuela is def. more industralized than early 20th century european social democracies.

Even Botswana is probably more industrialised than England was in 1811. But the difference is England was the most industrialised country in the world in 1811, an Botswana is one of the least industrialised countries in 2011.


there is no latin american exceptionalism, the only difference is that leftism in latin america tends to acquire weird latin american shades like "caudillismo"

My arse. Vargas or Perón were by no means leftists, not even in the mollified European social democratic sence of the word "leftist".

And no, there isn't any latin american exceptionalism; those economies are quite similar to those in Asia or Africa - in other words, to other peripheral economies worldwide.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

As for the number of US enterprises in Venezuela, in the Irish TV documentary, "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised," early on, there is a shot from Caracas, where the camera pans to show a bunch of signs of big US companies that are active in the Venezuelan capital.

And those companies, in what trade do they deal?


So I think there must be some US economic penetration in Venezuela. If a US business in Venezuela was nationalized, then the owner must have been generously compensated for his loss, which is Chávez' practice in nationalizations.

Of course there is US economic penetration in Venezuela; the issue is whether it is based on direct productive investment, or on speculative financing and offshore commerce.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Yeah, and unlike the old populist regime, which conducted a strict national-oil-firm policy on oil production, Chavez's "21st century" version allows for 'public-private' partnerships which allow the penetration of Western capital. Shell is bullish on Venezuelan oil concessions.

So, again, what is the cause of the vehement American State and bourgeoisie's opposition to Chávez? Are they worried that petty tyrant Chávez is doing away with Venezuela's civil liberties? Or are they concerned that Venezuela not obeying the IMF will result in the bankrupcy of the country?

... or are their interests somehow hampered by Chávez's government?

Luís Henrique

[Jose Gracchus]

Shell isn't a U.S. firm, and the U.S. is not the only hub of world foriegn direct investment, imperialism, and other ills.

Why should workers jump on this latest caudillo's bandwagon. He has broken public worker strikes, and reduced their ability to bargain. He is a bourgeois populist at the head of an openly bourgeois state. He has simply changed the composition of clientage networks which suck on the teet of PDVSA. There is a whole "Bolibourgeoisie" which has flourished under Chavez, and is the base of his power.

[Jose Gracchus]

No when it leads to utter deindustrialisation of the country, when it becomes an economic enclave, destroying anything else close to it.

Also, you never proved this ^.

[Luís Henrique]

Also, you never proved this ^.

That Venezuela is in a process of deindustrialisation? It is not a secret, is it?

When you have a commodity like oil, it is economically more advantageous to drill it, and buy whatever else in the international market; why develop manufacturing, which is costly, and arises political tensions, when you can buy everything abroad? It is a well known phenomenon, that economists use to call "Dutch disease": oil develops comparative disadvantages to industry, and slowly, or not so slowly, drowns the economy of the country.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Shell isn't a U.S. firm, and the U.S. is not the only hub of world foriegn direct investment, imperialism, and other ills.

So?


Why should workers jump on this latest caudillo's bandwagon.Who's arguing for that?

Again, what is the cause of the stubborn distaste for Chávez in the US government and elites?

Luís Henrique

[Die Neue Zeit]

When you have a commodity like oil, it is economically more advantageous to drill it, and buy whatever else in the international market; why develop manufacturing, which is costly, and arises political tensions, when you can buy everything abroad? It is a well known phenomenon, that economists use to call "Dutch disease": oil develops comparative disadvantages to industry, and slowly, or not so slowly, drowns the economy of the country.

Indeed, but there are still good political and, it seems, even economic, reasons to develop manufacturing self-sufficiency:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/comparative-advantage-kinds-t163400/index.html

[Luís Henrique]

Indeed, but there are still good political and, it seems, even economic, reasons to develop manufacturing self-sufficiency:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/comparative-advantage-kinds-t163400/index.html

Of course. The name of the thing is "Dutch disease", and a disease it is.

Luís Henrique

[Die Neue Zeit]

You do know that you may have contradicted yourself somewhat, right?


Only the working class can do that, and even it, only on a planetary level (so no, the Venezolan working class cannot, alone and in isolation from the rest of the world, have its private socialist revolution, and if they try, we can look at what happened to the former Soviet Union to see what it is doomed to become).

My Economics thread acknowledges the autarkic development efforts of the Stalin regime ("building SIOC"), while rejecting the "achievement of SIOC" thesis. Unless the demand basket of food is narrow, no reasonably sized country can be self-sufficient in agriculture. However, it can be self-sufficient in things like food processing, heavy manufacturing, construction, etc.

[Luís Henrique]

You do know that you may have contradicted yourself somewhat, right?

Because of the self-sufficience issue?

If a country wants to move up in the imperialist chain, it needs to acquire auto-sufficience in a few key industries. If possible, in industry in general. It doesn't need auto-sufficience in primary commodities, and should avoid at all costs becoming dependent on the exports of a few primary commodities.

If the working class of a country wants to break with the imperialist chain, the requirements are different, and actually unrelated to the above: it needs desintegrating the imperialist chain worldwide, which is only possible on a planetary level.

If the working class of a country is able to topple the bourgeois rule, but not to expand the revolution abroad, then what happens is what happened to the Soviet Union.

Luís Henrique

[Die Neue Zeit]

News update: http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/6684



By Ewan Robertson

Mérida, 11 December 2011 (Venezuelanalysis.com) – A Presidential Commission to draft a new labour law was announced by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez yesterday, as workers handed over 656,815 signatures in support of the law.

In November Chavez announced that he would pass a new “truly revolutionary and socialist labour law” using his enabling law powers, which were granted to him for 18 months by the country’s National Assembly (AN) in December 2010.

The Venezuelan president stated that the new Commission, which is constituted of 16 members from both government and civil society, is charged with “the gathering of opinions and ideas in order to assemble and promulgate the new Labour Law”. The president expects to pass the new law by 1 May 2012, International Workers’ Day.

From the executive, Maria Cristina Iglesias, Nicolas Maduro, and Jorge Giordani, ministers of labour, foreign affairs, and finance and planning respectively, will assume posts in the commission. The Procurator General of the Republic, Carlos Escarra, two Supreme Court magistrates, and four AN members will represent the judicial and legislative branches of government.

Meanwhile, the president and the coordinator of the Bolivarian Socialist Workers Central, Wills Rangel and Carlos Lopez, the president of small and medium manufactures body Fedeindustria, and three lawyers and legal experts complete the composition of the Commission.

Debating the Drafting and Passage of the Law

Wills Rangel and twenty-two workers also handed Chavez 656,815 signatures in support of the law yesterday, which had been collected in conjunction with several days of events promoting awareness of the new law in 15 states throughout the country.

He continued that the aim is to gather a total of 1,300,000 signatures, “so that, Mr. President, you approve by enabling powers this new Labour Law within the conception of a socialist State”.

When Chavez announced in November he would pass a new labour law using his enabling powers many workers’ organisations celebrated the move, after discussions of the law, which was first proposed in 2003, had been held up in the AN on several occasions. Chavez also stated the law would be drafted in direct consultation with the Venezuelan people and workers.

However other organisations, including the Venezuelan Communist Party (PCV) and the National Workers Union (UNETE), were initially in favour of the law being passed through the AN rather than by presidential decree. While the PCV and UNETE now agree with decree powers as a means to pass the law, they argue that the working class must have direct input into its drafting.

For its part, the PCV launched their Integral Action Plan on Saturday 3 December, which according the PCV’s Popular Tribune, brings together the UNETE and other workers’ organisations to “boost a united and national debate around the need to conquer a new and revolutionary Labour Law” and will present proposals “emanated from the union and working class movement about the main content the Labour Law should have”.

Oscar Figuera, leader of the PCV, has also declared that workers should mobilise in the streets to make sure that the new law is of a “revolutionary” nature, and recognises the political rights of workers to organise in the workplace.

Speaking yesterday, Chavez declared the new law would constitute “a redress to the Venezuelan working class in relation to the great historical robbery of capitalism and the bourgeoisie”.

The law will replace the existing labour law, passed in 1997 by president Rafael Caldera under pressure from the IMF, which removed legal requirements from employers such as severance pay and compensation for unfair dismissal. Chavez has announced the new law will reinstate these requirements and benefits, as well as repay the money taken from the Venezuelan working class during this time.

[Prometeo liberado]

Chavez is by no means "the answer". Unfortunately he is the most visable, with deference to Evo Morales, Bolivarian on the scene. There are huge outcries amongst the various tendencies as to how much Chavez actually understands to what he sais and does. What he has accomplished so far is just the basics of socialism,the very least. Yet his language is that of the revolution won. I understand the need for censorship especially after the attempted coup, and reneging on certain treaties as Lenin had to in order to get out of WW1. If the revolution is simply left to him without ensuring that the radicalized workers and communist leadership are waiting in the wings then all that has been accomplished will revert back in one "free" election.

[MustCrushCapitalism]

all that has been accomplished will revert back in one "free" election.
My main issue with reformism.

Other than that though, Chavez is one of my favorite international leaders right now. :p Venezuela needs to just do away with the multi party system already.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ There are different kinds of multi-party systems. Broadly speaking, there's the liberal kind and there's the managed kind (http://www.revleft.com/vb/does-venezuela-need-t141876/index.html).