Venezuela Socialist - Help! [Archive]

View Full Version : Venezuela Socialist - Help!

Dear Leader

21st March 2013, 18:15

LOLseph Stalin

22nd March 2013, 00:16

There seems to be conflicting views on Chavez among the left. He was democratically elected which is certainly a rarity for leftists. I do think he had socialistic views but I think calling him a Marxist would be stretching it. That doesn't downplay the massive gains Venezuelans made under his leadership, however. I just hope whoever his successor is will continue his legacy.

RedMaterialist

22nd March 2013, 00:31

#FF0000

22nd March 2013, 00:32

#FF0000

22nd March 2013, 00:33

AConfusedSocialDemocrat

22nd March 2013, 00:35

It was a social democratic revolution at the most. Power was too centralised and very hierarchal, businesess were state run in a capitalist manner, rather than autogestion or a gift economy, plus the Bolivian Revolution was rather populist and built around Chavez, rather than the working class emancipating themselves.

The guy was one of the better leaders of Latin America, but not really a socialist.

RedMaterialist

22nd March 2013, 00:35

Venezuela is no more socialist than any European welfare-capitalist society. I don't even know any supporters of Chavez or Venezuela that contend that Venezuela (or Chavez) is/was socialist.

More of the infantile leftist disorder.

#FF0000

22nd March 2013, 00:36

More of the infantile leftist disorder.

Get out if you're going to peddle this weak nonsense instead of engage in honest discussion.

AConfusedSocialDemocrat

22nd March 2013, 00:39

More of the infantile leftist disorder.

Muh state capitalism.

RedMaterialist

22nd March 2013, 00:42

Socialism is a completely different mode of production -- there is no half way. Either a society is based on wage labor and private ownership/control over the means of production, or it is not.

A society can be based on wage-labor and still be in the first stages of socialism. Marx specifically maintained this in The Gotha Program. In fact, he showed that it was impossible to move completely from capitalism to socialism without maintaining during the transition some of the features of capitalism like wage-labor.

Viva Chavez et Viva Socialisme!

#FF0000

22nd March 2013, 00:44

RedMaterialist

22nd March 2013, 00:47

Get out if you're going to peddle this weak nonsense instead of engage in honest discussion.

What are you going to do? Put me in a show trial and send me to the gulag? Or better, you can argue that Chavez was a state-capitalist.

AConfusedSocialDemocrat

22nd March 2013, 00:50

What are you going to do? Put me in a show trial and send me to the gulag?

That's usually what your side does to us...

RedMaterialist

22nd March 2013, 00:52

What makes Venezuela socialist, and not the Scandinavian social democracies? Or are they all "socialist", to you?

They are all transitioning to socialism, each country based on its own conditions, etc. Check out the 10 demands of the Communist Manifesto and see how many of them have been achieved in these countries, e.g., universal suffrage, heavy, progressive taxes, state ownership of major industries. Are they perfect socialist societies? No.

RedMaterialist

22nd March 2013, 00:53

That's usually what your side does to us...

hmmm...

#FF0000

22nd March 2013, 01:08

They are all transitioning to socialism, each country based on its own conditions, etc
Check out the 10 demands of the Communist Manifesto and see how many of them have been achieved in these countries, e.g., universal suffrage, heavy, progressive taxes, state ownership of major industries. Are they perfect socialist societies? No.

No -- they're just not socialist societies, full stop. A country that nationalizes industry and banks is not socialist. A country with a social safety net (no matter how well-funded) is not socialist. The difference between a socialist and capitalist society goes beyond how well-funded their social programs are.

And what does this mean, that "they are all transitioning to socialism"? Is Venezuela further along in this transition to socialism than these other countries? Is every country that isn't a Randian dystopia in a transition to "pure socialism"? If not, why, and what makes Venezuela so special?

Blake's Baby

22nd March 2013, 01:11

A society can be based on wage-labor and still be in the first stages of socialism. Marx specifically maintained this in The Gotha Program. In fact, he showed that it was impossible to move completely from capitalism to socialism without maintaining during the transition some of the features of capitalism like wage-labor...

Now, I quote this every 2 days or so.

Marx: Critique of the Gotha Programme IV - http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm
"Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat."

So what we have is capitalst society - which is I think we all agree based on the economic form of 'capitalism' (that is wage labour and commodity production) - which is transformed, during the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat, into communist society - which I think we'll all agree is one of collective ownership and control of the means of prouction and distribution. Bear in mind that for Marx, socialism and communism are the same thing, so Marx's 'communist society' is both lower and higher stage here.

So, as the dictatorship of the proletariat starts in capitalism, and ends when we reach communism, also known as socialism to Marx (lower stage), how exactly does wage labour continue into communism? Or, are you claiming that Venezuela was or is in the 'dictatorship of the proletariat'?

La GuaneÃ±a

22nd March 2013, 01:12

Venezuela is not Socialist, nor a Proletarian State of any kind. This has to be very clear.

The Bolivarian Revolution, although not actually being an actual proletarian revolution in the sense of destroying the Bourgeois State and building a new one from it's ashes is a very progressive process with mass support. In my view, this means that Chavez is not taking Venezuela in the direction of Socialism via election (I can't even see this as being possible), but using the democratic system to create good conditions for the venezuelan workers to intensify their own fights.

The PSUV and the parties joining them in the struggle have also showed the White House that it's not gonna be so easy for them from now on, and a defeat in the upcoming elections would probably mean a weakening in the anti-imperialist defence line, what I see as a bad thing, even if some people here don't.

This is why I believe that Chavez and now Maduro must be supported in the upcoming elections. The haters might as well keep it up, Capriles and the USA need so much help that it makes me sad.

RedMaterialist

22nd March 2013, 04:13

So, as the dictatorship of the proletariat starts in capitalism, and ends when we reach communism, also known as socialism to Marx (lower stage), how exactly does wage labour continue into communism? Or, are you claiming that Venezuela was or is in the 'dictatorship of the proletariat'?

It's not that wage labor continues into communism. The transition into communism will retain certain characteristics of capitalism until the transition is completed, as stated clearly in [I]The Critique of the Gotha Programme.[/I Wages will still be needed to distinguish between strong, weak, skilled, and unskilled labor. It is simply not possible to do away with this stage. Once, however, socialism has finally succeeded in destroying capitalism, then society can proceed to a society of from each according, to each, etc. All of this has already been said by Marx. Why do socialists have to re-fight this war?

I would say the working class in Venezuela now has a tenuous, democratic, control over the government. Whether they can maintain this control depends on the working class in Venezuela and the other Latin American democracies and on whether the U.S. can be prevented from staging a coup.

#FF0000

22nd March 2013, 04:54

I would say the working class in Venezuela now has a tenuous, democratic, control over the government.

I would say that'd be the case in most countries, though?

homegrown terror

22nd March 2013, 05:29

I would say that'd be the case in most countries, though?

how does that make any sense at all? states in the modern world are all controlled either by the puppets of the bourgeoisie or by a network of petty gangster warlords. give me the name of ONE nation that exists today that is legitimately controlled by the proletariat.

#FF0000

22nd March 2013, 05:40

how does that make any sense at all? states in the modern world are all controlled either by the puppets of the bourgeoisie or by a network of petty gangster warlords. give me the name of ONE nation that exists today that is legitimately controlled by the proletariat.

There are none, which is why I'm asking what is meant by "tenuous, democratic control". Workers in a lot of countries can vote. That can certainly be called "tenuous democratic control".

homegrown terror

22nd March 2013, 06:38

There are none, which is why I'm asking what is meant by "tenuous, democratic control". Workers in a lot of countries can vote. That can certainly be called "tenuous democratic control".

i'd call it "illusory democratic control." what good is it to vote, if either choice is a corporate figurehead that will just prolong your oppression? worthwhile change, true revolution and real freedom can only be bought with our blood, exchanged for the hope and promise that our sacrifice will give our children a better world. it most certainly won't be bought with a slip of paper in a ballot box.

sixdollarchampagne

22nd March 2013, 07:02

Since I started posting here a lot of people have made it seem like they think Venezuela is not socialist. I always thought that it was... I am really confused right now. What does it mean to be socialist, and is Venezuela socialist? Hugo Chavez and the Bolivarian revolution were where I found left wing class politics, and truly got something out of it. Cutting poverty, and other great things to empower the working class and poor. It seems I may be wrong for ever believing it. Help!:confused:

The great Lenin, who knew a thing or two about revolution, defined "socialism" as a situation in which the working class is running society. In Venezuela, society is obviously run by the exploiters, who, exactly as they did before Chávez, still legally sweat surplus value out of the workers.

Revolution in our time is a violent convulsion of an entire society, in which the workers destroy the power of the exploiters. That never happened in Venezuela, and a revolutionary struggle never takes place silently or invisibly. If the Venezuelan workers had smashed the capitalist state in their country, the whole world would know about it. Nothing like that happened. On the contrary, Chávez is famous for having told the Venezuelan large landowners, "If it is yours, then it is yours," and he always insisted that [I]businessmen had a role to play in the Bolivarian "revolution," which guarantees that it wasn't a revolution at all.

Chávez should be understood as a kind of Venezuelan Franklin D. Roosevelt: like FDR, who safely escorted rule by the exploiters through a difficult period of challenges from workers and the poor in the US, Chávez is largely responsible for the survival of capitalist rule (in Venezuela), and it is a shame that large parts of the left cannot understand that socialism does not come from any bourgeois politician, whether FDR or Chávez, or Lula, or Correa, etc., but from class struggle by class-conscious workers.

#FF0000

22nd March 2013, 07:18

i'd call it "illusory democratic control." what good is it to vote, if either choice is a corporate figurehead that will just prolong your oppression? worthwhile change, true revolution and real freedom can only be bought with our blood, exchanged for the hope and promise that our sacrifice will give our children a better world. it most certainly won't be bought with a slip of paper in a ballot box.

Yo, I don't disagree with you. I just want an explanation as to what this "tenuous democratic control" actually means.

Tim Cornelis

22nd March 2013, 09:25

There is pure socialism and real, existing socialism. A lot of the leftists on this site are of the purist brand of socialism, what Lenin once called "left-wing communism, an infantile disorder." They believe that a society cannot be socialist unless it is 100% socialist.

Venezuela is by no means a purely socialist country, but the country is moving toward socialism. I hope you keep fighting for the working class. Don't get discouraged and don't listen to the infantile leftists on this site.

"Pure" socialism and "impure" socialism strikes me as idealist hogwash. By what account does Venezuela move towards socialism? Chavez even stated a classless society was not the aim of the Bolivarian Revolution. So we have a socialist society based on social classes, markets, generalised commodity production, private ownership, etc.

A society can be based on wage-labor and still be in the first stages of socialism. Marx specifically maintained this in The Gotha Program. In fact, he showed that it was impossible to move completely from capitalism to socialism without maintaining during the transition some of the features of capitalism like wage-labor.
[/I]

A society in the transition to socialism is not socialist in itself--that should be axiomatic. "Some features" is entirely different than an economy based on wage-labour, commodity production, etc. as in Venezuela and Europe.

They are all transitioning to socialism, each country based on its own conditions, etc. Check out the 10 demands of the Communist Manifesto and see how many of them have been achieved in these countries, e.g., universal suffrage, heavy, progressive taxes, state ownership of major industries. Are they perfect socialist societies? No.

So irrespective of what ruling class controls the economy and politics of society they are moving towards socialism? In that case, why not abandon class struggle? You seem to adhere to some absurd form of economic determinism where socialism is the result no matter what. If you contend that socialism exists in the Western world you don't have a particular strong grasp of what it means. I think you may need to brush up on your Lenin you so selectively appeal to. And pile some Engels and Marx on top of that.

Neither will communism be "perfect" so could we say the Netherlands is as socialist as communism?

Blake's Baby

22nd March 2013, 12:40

It's not that wage labor continues into communism. The transition into communism will retain certain characteristics of capitalism until the transition is completed, as stated clearly in [I]The Critique of the Gotha Programme.[/I Wages will still be needed to distinguish between strong, weak, skilled, and unskilled labor. It is simply not possible to do away with this stage. Once, however, socialism has finally succeeded in destroying capitalism, then society can proceed to a society of from each according, to each, etc. All of this has already been said by Marx. Why do socialists have to re-fight this war?...

Oh, I agree, Marx is very clear, so why are you claiming things Marx doesn't say?

The revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat, as Marx says in the Critique of the Gotha Progrmamme, Part IV, is the political form that oversees the transition. So the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat begins the transition inside capitalism. By the time the transition is complete, there is no revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat, because the proletariat has abolished itself. Until it does so (by abolishing property and therefore classes and therefore states), property classes and states - and capitalism - continue to exist.

So what you are saying, then, that both Marx and I agree with, is that the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat oversees a form of capitalism. Venezuela has a form of capitalism. The question then is, is Venezuela under the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat? If it is, and the world revolution is continuing, then the transition from capitalism to socialism is possible. If it not under the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat then no transition is possible, it's all just capitalism.

RedAtheist

22nd March 2013, 12:50

They are all transitioning to socialism, each country based on its own conditions, etc. Check out the 10 demands of the Communist Manifesto and see how many of them have been achieved in these countries, e.g., universal suffrage, heavy, progressive taxes, state ownership of major industries. Are they perfect socialist societies? No.

Ahem. "The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible." Communist Manifesto, Chapter 2 (emphasis added by me)

These days I don't think its necessary for first world countries to increase their productive forces, but the part about the state becoming "the proletariat organized as the ruling class" is crucial. Unless you can show that Sweden or any other capital producing (and therefore capitalist) country has achieved that, any other "achievement" is irrelevant since according to Marx and Engels they were supposed to take place in a context where the proletariat is the ruling class.

Besides universal suffrage is not even one of the demands put forth in the Communist Manifesto. At most you've shown that two of the demands have been fulfilled. I seriously doubt that Sweden or any other Scandinavian country has abolished inheritance, made all its citizens equally obligated to work or moved towards getting rid of distinctions between rural and urban areas. Only a few of the demands in that list are "welfare state" type demands. I don't see anyone politician in Sweden working towards meeting any of the other demands or trying to do away with the production of capital. If any of them were, the US would be attempting to oust him/her.

Then of course there's the whole "abolition of private property" thing that reformists totally ignore.

Dear Leader

22nd March 2013, 16:03

RedMaterialist

22nd March 2013, 16:26

Ahem. "The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible." Communist Manifesto, Chapter 2 (emphasis added by me)

The part of this quote that applies to the current discussion is by degree. Wresting "by degree" implies a process taking place over time and space.

Chavez, for instance, began land reform by taking over 2.7 million acres of land and re-distributing it to peasants:

(http://climateandcapitalism.com/2012/11/21/venezuela-accelerates-land-reform/

Everyone knows about the nationalization of the oil companies.

The next stage, imo, in this process, will be the fight against the reactionaries
who, with the help of the U.S., will try to bring down the Venezuelan government. If you want to be part of the socialist revolutionary process then join in with other socialists demanding the U.S. keep HANDS OFF VENEZUELA.

If a revolution develops (on its own conditions, time and place, per Rosa Luxembourg) then the vanguard leading the fight to save Venezuela's first steps into socialism will be ready to lead the revolution.

RedMaterialist

22nd March 2013, 16:39

I appreciate all the responses. Are there any works by Marx or anyone that I should look into reading to know what socialism really is? I still think what they were trying to achieve in Venezuela was socialism, so maybe it was the transition that you guys are talking about that is going on there. I'm open to learn though, so if you have nay works, i'll read them!

Well, it was the transition I was talking about. Some of the other comments were about instantaneous miracles of the immaculate and immediate revolution.

To understand socialism, read, over and over, The Communist Manifesto, Wages, Prices and Profit (Marx), and The State and Revolution. (Lenin) Then read them again and again. On the fifth or sixth reading you will begin to get an understanding. Then keep on reading. The best thing, imo, is to join a socialist group and get into discussing socialism. You will find that there are several different types (or tendencies, as they say,) of socialism.

HANDS OFF VENEZUELA

Then start into the greatest work of history, philosophy, economics, sociology in history, Das Kapital.

#FF0000

22nd March 2013, 17:31

Chavez, for instance, began land reform by taking over 2.7 million acres of land and re-distributing it to peasants:

Everyone knows about the nationalization of the oil companies.

A lot of countries have nationalized key industries, though. Do they just need to redistribute some land to be officially "in transition"?

I appreciate all the responses. Are there any works by Marx or anyone that I should look into reading to know what socialism really is? I still think what they were trying to achieve in Venezuela was socialism, so maybe it was the transition that you guys are talking about that is going on there. I'm open to learn though, so if you have nay works, i'll read them!

Critique of the Gotha Programme, and The Civil War in France might be what you're looking for?

Tim Cornelis

22nd March 2013, 17:39

Well, it was the transition I was talking about. Some of the other comments were about instantaneous miracles of the immaculate and immediate revolution.

To understand socialism, read, over and over, The Communist Manifesto, Wages, Prices and Profit (Marx), and The State and Revolution. (Lenin) Then read them again and again.

I advise reading State and Revolution to you as well. If you have, you don't particularly seem to grasp it. State and Revolution contradicts any claim that Venezuela is socialist or transforming intoto it. State and Revolution clearly states the aim of abolishing the bourgeois state introducing labour vouchers in place of money, and turning means of production into common property under socialism or lower-phase communism. None of this has happened in Venezuela, nor is there any future programme for this.

Dear Leader

22nd March 2013, 17:56

Thanks, I'll try to read these, and I'll wait until I do that to post again.:)

cantwealljustgetalong

22nd March 2013, 18:02

I think it's chapter 5 of State and Revolution where Lenin discusses his stage theory. Comrade Redshifted should follow his own advice and read through it. No state can be socialism. At best, it's a DotP or the first stage of Communism, and we know Venezuela is not. That doesn't mean socialists can't support Chavez if they feel inclined, but one should take a much more nuanced line on why to do so than because they are socialist. None of this is to denigrate Chavez, but simply to clarify what Marxists have meant by socialism.

Don't bother reading Kapital yet, btw...it's ridiculously long. Try the other three books, but instead of reading them over and over, study them well and move on to more. :)

Sinister Cultural Marxist

22nd March 2013, 18:12

The question is whether or not Venezuela is a "Dictatorship of the proletariat", in some kind of "transition to the Dictatorship of the proletariat", or if there is some transition model which is an alternative to the DotP.

There are certainly authentic Communists and Socialists (or people who see themselves as such) in the Chavista movement and the Chavista government, but that doesn't mean it's actually taking the necessary steps to build socialism. The Chavista movement at its core, according to everything I've read, is an alliance of the radical working class, a sort of "red" business elite, and the military (including a large class of corrupt military officials). In a sense it seems impossible to verify what on earth Venezuela is transitioning towards because the ruling party itself is ridden with contradiction. It obviously can't be a "socialist" movement until it's kicked out the "red capitalists" and cleaned up the military, but thus far those constituencies have been an important part of the movement.

It is significant to note, however, that much of the financial sector remains private and a majority of employees are in the private sector too, so even if we are to judge "socialism" by nationalization alone Venezuela is not very far down whatever road of "transition" they are meant to be on.

Manulearning

22nd March 2013, 18:44

RCP are putting an article on Venezuela soon. Also there was recently one article in a Trotskyist magazine on Venezuels - a good one, but i am skipping :o

On Hugo Chavez: Four Points of Orientation
March 6, 2013 | Revolution Newspaper | revcom.us

Hugo Chavez, president of Venezuela for the last 14 years, died of cancer on Tuesday, March 5. In coming weeks, Revolution newspaper will feature analysis of Hugo Chavez, his program and outlook, and the regime he headed. We offer readers these four points of orientation for understanding the politics and economics of Hugo Chavez and U.S. imperialism’s stance towards him.

1. U.S. imperialism has dominated Venezuela.

Throughout the 20th century, the U.S. dominated Venezuela's economy. It gave military and political support to the ruling regimes that represented the interests of the wealthy landed, industrial, and financial elites. Oil was a critical factor. Venezuela had emerged as a major oil producer in the world, and U.S. oil companies were heavily involved in Venezuela's oil sector. In 1989 the International Monetary Fund (IMF) imposed a vicious austerity plan on Venezuela. The masses took to the streets in militant protest. The government responded with bloody repression, murdering at least 3,000 people.

2. Hugo Chavez was a thorn in the side of U.S. imperialism.

Hugo Chavez came to office in 1998 against a backdrop of massive corruption, autocratic rule, and subordination to imperialism. He said that the resources of Venezuela belong to the Venezuelan people, and that oil revenues should be used to improve social welfare. He called for a foreign policy that would stand up to the U.S. For these and other reasons, Hugo Chavez commanded considerable popular support. For these reasons, Hugo Chavez also became a thorn in the side of U.S. imperialism. In April 2002, the CIA backed a coup against Chavez. And throughout Chavez's presidency, U.S. government aid agencies and military attaches, and U.S. private foundations and media outlets, have worked to build up anti-Chavez forces in Venezuela.

3. Hugo Chavez did not stand for genuine revolution and genuine socialism.

A real revolution in an oppressed Third World country like Venezuela requires a two-fold break. There must be a radical break with the political economy of imperialism. And there must be a radical social revolution, a radical break with traditional relations and ideas. This was neither the program nor outlook of Hugo Chavez. Venezuela remained dependent for revenues on the world oil economy, which is dominated by imperialism. It remained dependent on the world market, which is dominated by imperialist agro-business, for its food. Under Chavez, there was improvement in literacy and health care, but there was no fundamental change in the class and social structure of society. Agriculture is still dominated by an oligarchy of rich landowners. In the cities, the poor remain locked into slums. Women remain subordinated and degraded. Abortion is banned in Venezuela.

4. U.S. imperialism has no right to meddle or intervene.

Any and all attempts by the U.S. to destabilize, or plot against, the Venezuelan government must be resolutely opposed. We in the U.S. have a special responsibility to act on that understanding.

soso17

22nd March 2013, 19:38

DasFapital

22nd March 2013, 20:13

Chavez was a social democrat. Of course any social democrat in that part of the world who is darker skinned and vaguely anti-American imperialism gets labeled as a "leftist dictator" by the right.

RedMaterialist

22nd March 2013, 21:02

and turning means of production into common property under socialism or lower-phase communism. None of this has happened in Venezuela, nor is there any future programme for this.

Nationalization of the oil industry is a good first step.

RedMaterialist

22nd March 2013, 21:09

How is land redistribution socialism? Cutting up property into smaller pieces =/= doing away with private ownership. Collectivisation is the socialist answer to the peasant question.

--soso

It's not just re-distribution to small farmers. The land is also being formed into cooperatives. You can google Venezuela land reform.

Tim Cornelis

22nd March 2013, 21:15

Nationalization of the oil industry is a good first step.

No it isn't. Nationalisation by a workers' state is arguably socialisation. Nationalisation by a bourgeois state is capitalistic. Nationalisation in itself does not change the relations of production, let alone the mode of production. It is not even a step, a means, but an end. Today, the private sector encompasses two-thirds of the economy, the same as when Chavez took power.

the transformation — either into joint-stock companies and trusts, or into State-ownership — does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces. In the joint-stock companies and trusts, this is obvious. And the modern State, again, is only the organization that bourgeois society takes on in order to support the external conditions of the capitalist mode of production against the encroachments as well of the workers as of individual capitalists. The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine — the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage-workers — proletarians. The capitalist relation is not done away with. It is, rather, brought to a head. But, brought to a head, it topples over. State-ownership of the productive forces is not the solution of the conflict, but concealed within it are the technical conditions that form the elements of that solution.

Friedrich Engels.

RedMaterialist

23rd March 2013, 02:26

No it isn't. Nationalisation by a workers' state is arguably socialisation. Nationalisation by a bourgeois state is capitalistic. Nationalisation in itself does not change the relations of production, let alone the mode of production. It is not even a step, a means, but an end. Today, the private sector encompasses two-thirds of the economy, the same as when Chavez took power.

As Engel's said, nationalization does not solve the problem, it brings the problem to a head; but contained within it are the technical conditions which solve the problem.

Around 2003, or so, the National Venezuela Oil company was shut down by a strike of engineers and other skilled workers; i.e. the bourgeois employees. Chavez ordered that unskilled workers replace them and production resumed a few months later. Dozens of other industries have been nationalized. In all these industries the conditions for the transition from capitalism to socialism to communism are being developed.

The process can be reversed, of course. That is what the reactionaries and counter-revolutionaries will try.

It would not surprise Marx or Lenin that the first stage of socialism still contains characteristics of the old capitalist system:

But the scientific distinction between socialism and communism is clear....

Marx gives an analysis of what might be called the stages of the economic maturity of communism...

In its first phase, or first stage, communism cannot as yet be fully mature economically and entirely free from traditions or vestiges of capitalism. ..

It follows that under communism there remains for a time not only bourgeois law, but even the bourgeois state, without the bourgeoisie...!

But in fact, remnants of the old, surviving in the new, confront us in life at every step, both in nature and in society. And Marx did not arbitrarily insert a scrap of “bourgeois” law into communism, but indicated what is economically and politically inevitable in a society emerging out of the womb of capitalism.

Lenin, State and Revolution

The bourgeois state, as a form, remains in Venezuela, but it is in the process of transforming itself into a socialist state. The next step is complete nationalization of the main industries, and then the elimination of the bourgeois class. It doesn't all happen overnight.

Let's Get Free

23rd March 2013, 02:29

Venezuela is just another left-wing capitalist government.

homegrown terror

23rd March 2013, 06:30

The bourgeois state, as a form, remains in Venezuela, but it is in the process of transforming itself into a socialist state. The next step is complete nationalization of the main industries, and then the elimination of the bourgeois class. It doesn't all happen overnight.

no it doesn't happen overnight, but it happens in a series of overnight steps, not a gradual process of making a capitalist state more "benign." the concept that a capitalist state can, through acts of legislature, form a socialist society, is pure utopian hogwash. whatever a congressman or CEO says in terms of reform, it will only ever amount to lip service. the first step will always be a catastrophic overthrow of the current status quo, not electing enough communist sympathisers to government positions. "progressive capitalism" will always be a particularly venomous snake in the grass.

RedAtheist

23rd March 2013, 07:03

The part of this quote that applies to the current discussion is by degree. Wresting "by degree" implies a process taking place over time and space.

Chavez, for instance, began land reform by taking over 2.7 million acres of land and re-distributing it to peasants.

I was actually making my argument in reference to Sweden (and similar countries), I'm not sure about whether or not Venezuela is headed towards socialism, but anyhow, the part about taking capital from the ruling class "by degree" refers to the actions of a state (fully) controlled by a proletariat (the proletariat is described as having "political supremacy".) Marx did not say that the workers should gain control of the state "by degree". You have to demonstrate that the state you're describing is controlled by the working class, before policies regarding 'nationalization' or 'wealth redistribution' becoming anything more than the works of a benevolent, yet condescending, bourgeoisie government.

It could be argued that the Chavez government was to some degree under the control of the proletariat and that it was aiming to abolish all large scale production of capital (because until you do that you're country is capitalist) though it has not done so yet, but the government of Sweden definitely is not controlled by the working class and allows its companies free reign, which is why their TNCs are wrecking forests and we seem them all over the world.

Also you can tell a revolution has happened when a significant cultural change occurs. Radical changes in the economic and political system of a country usually bring about changes in people's thinking. I've met Swedish women and they think exactly the way women in the West are told to think (they obsessed over their looks, thought of themselves in relation to their boyfriends, played a subordinate role within their relationships, etc.) If Sweden is fundamentally different from the rest of the West that difference should have been visible.

sixdollarchampagne

23rd March 2013, 07:27

Tim Cornelis

23rd March 2013, 12:34

As Engel's said, nationalization does not solve the problem, it brings the problem to a head; but contained within it are the technical conditions which solve the problem.

Talk about selective reading! The "technical conditions" Engels refers to stem merely from the socialistion of workers. Nationalisation "solvew" the problem by merely having to dispose of the capitalist state. The centralisation thereof has already been performed. It merely has to be wrestled from its grasp. In other words, the implication of the quote you selectively read is that the workers need to overthrow Chavez' nationalised corporations:

This solution can only consist in the practical recognition of the social nature of the modern forces of production, and therefore in the harmonizing with the socialized character of the means of production. And this can only come about by society openly and directly taking possession of the productive forces which have outgrown all control, except that of society as a whole. The social character of the means of production and of the products today reacts against the producers, periodically disrupts all production and exchange, acts only like a law of Nature working blindly, forcibly, destructively. But,with the taking over by society of the productive forces, the social character of the means of production and of the products will be utilized by the producers with a perfect understanding of its nature, and instead of being a source of disturbance and periodical collapse, will become the most powerful lever of production itself.

...

Whilst the capitalist mode of production more and more completely transforms the great majority of the population into proletarians, it creates the power which, under penalty of its own destruction, is forced to accomplish this revolution. Whilst it forces on more and more of the transformation of the vast means of production, already socialized, into State property, it shows itself the way to accomplishing this revolution. The proletariat seizes political power and turns the means of production into State property.

Around 2003, or so, the National Venezuela Oil company was shut down by a strike of engineers and other skilled workers; i.e. the bourgeois employees. Chavez ordered that unskilled workers replace them and production resumed a few months later. Dozens of other industries have been nationalized. In all these industries the conditions for the transition from capitalism to socialism to communism are being developed.

Saudi Arabia has nationalised oil.

Engineers and skilled workers are workers, i.e. working class members.

If we are to go by Engels, then the conditions for the transition are indeed being developed, but not in the manner you speak of. Rather through reducing the task of the workers to merely having to seize control of it, the socialisation and centralisation has already been performed, therewith the capitalist class has become obsolete:

Taking over of the great institutions for production and communication, first by joint-stock companies, later in by trusts, then by the State. The bourgeoisie demonstrated to be a superfluous class. All its social functions are now performed by salaried employees.

It would not surprise Marx or Lenin that the first stage of socialism still contains characteristics of the old capitalist system:

Characteristics, elements, it wouldn't be based in it. For instance, labour vouchers according to contribution would be "bourgeois," but that's entirely different than an economy run by a capitalist class, based on commodity production, markets, private ownership and public ownership without workers' control.

Lenin, State and Revolution

What you speak of isn't "bourgeois law" under communism, it's bourgeois law under capitalism. Regardless, that one sentence by Lenin contradicts chapters dedicated to the abolition of the bourgeois state and bourgeois parliamentarianism. Following this, a semi-state is erected, a dictatorship of the proletariat, which exists because of class antagonisms and later to regulate the so-called "bourgeois law" of 'from each according to his abilities, to each according to his contribution'. As such, this workers' semi-state regulates moderate inequality within the context of a classless society. This moderate inequality that stems from distribution according to needs, Lenin calls a "bourgeois law" and thus a "bourgeois state," however this bourgeois state is not the liberal democracy of parliamentarianism of the bourgeois state, which has long been abolished.

You, in contrast, speak of regulating a multitude of bourgeois laws -- commodity production, markets, private property, capital, money -- through bourgeois parliamentarianism.

The bourgeois state, as a form, remains in Venezuela, but it is in the process of transforming itself into a socialist state. The next step is complete nationalization of the main industries, and then the elimination of the bourgeois class.

Then the state becomes the bourgeois class. It can't be transformed into a "socialist state."

Engels says that, in seizing state power, the proletariat thereby “abolishes the state as state". It is not done to ponder over over the meaning of this. Generally, it is either ignored altogether, or is considered to be something in the nature of “Hegelian weakness” on Engels' part. As a matter of fact, however, these words briefly express the experience of one of the greatest proletarian revolutions, the Paris Commune of 1871, of which we shall speak in greater detail in its proper place. As a matter of fact, Engels speaks here of the proletariat revolution “abolishing” the bourgeois state, while the words about the state withering away refer to the remnants of the proletarian state after the socialist revolution. According to Engels, the bourgeois state does not “wither away", but is “abolished” by the proletariat in the course of the revolution. What withers away after this revolution is the proletarian state or semi-state.

Secondly, the state is a “special coercive force". Engels gives this splendid and extremely profound definition here with the utmost lucidity. And from it follows that the “special coercive force” for the suppression of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie, of millions of working people by handfuls of the rich, must be replaced by a “special coercive force” for the suppression of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat (the dictatorship of the proletariat). This is precisely what is meant by “abolition of the state as state". This is precisely the “act” of taking possession of the means of production in the name of society. And it is self-evident that such a replacement of one (bourgeois) “special force” by another (proletarian) “special force” cannot possibly take place in the form of “withering away".

Thirdly, in speaking of the state “withering away", and the even more graphic and colorful “dying down of itself", Engels refers quite clearly and definitely to the period after “the state has taken possession of the means of production in the name of the whole of society", that is, after the socialist revolution. We all know that the political form of the “state” at that time is the most complete democracy. But it never enters the head of any of the opportunists, who shamelessly distort Marxism, that Engels is consequently speaking here of democracy “dying down of itself", or “withering away". This seems very strange at first sight. But is is “incomprehensible” only to those who have not thought about democracy also being a state and, consequently, also disappearing when the state disappears. Revolution alone can “abolish” the bourgeois state. The state in general, i.e., the most complete democracy, can only “wither away".

Fourthly, after formulating his famous proposition that “the state withers away", Engels at once explains specifically that this proposition is directed against both the opportunists and the anarchists. In doing this, Engels puts in the forefront that conclusion, drawn from the proposition that “the state withers away", which is directed against the opportunists.

Now the question is put somewhat differently: the transition from capitalist society--which is developing towards communism--to communist society is impossible without a "political transition period", and the state in this period can only be the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.

The only manner in which the Venezuelan state can be "transformed" into a "socialist state" (which, I think, is false terminology, we should speak of a workers' state, semi-state, or dictatorship of the proletariat), is through the abolition of parliament, which implies the abolition of the entire state structure to be replaced by communes and soviets:

"The Commune," Marx wrote, "was to be a working, not a parliamentary, body, executive and legislative at the same time....

"Instead of deciding once in three or six years which member of the ruling class was to represent and repress [ver- and zertreten] the people in parliament, universal suffrage was to serve the people constituted in communes, as individual suffrage serves every other employer in the search for workers, foremen and accountants for his business."

Owing to the prevalence of social-chauvinism and opportunism, this remarkable criticism of parliamentarism, made in 1871, also belongs now to the "forgotten words" of Marxism.

And here Lenin speaks about Hugo Chavez:

But if we deal with the question of the state, and if we consider parliamentarism as one of the institutions of the state, from the point of view of the tasks of the proletariat in this field, what is the way out of parliamentarism? How can it be dispensed with?

Once again, we must say: the lessons of Marx, based on the study of the Commune, have been so completely forgotten that the present-day "Social-Democrat" (i.e., present-day traitor to socialism) really cannot understand any criticism of parliamentarism other than anarchist or reactionary criticism.

Social-democracy then is what democratic socialism including Chavismo is today: bring about social reforms through parliamentary and legislative means.

A Revolutionary Tool

23rd March 2013, 13:56

Nationalization of the oil industry is a good first step.
The oil industry in Venezuela was nationalized back in the 70's, what particularly pissed off the U.S. government was Chavez's stance that the already nationalized industry would not be privatized. Maybe right-wing news sources(or left-wing sources who bought into right-wing lies) ranted on and on about Chavez nationalizing the oil industry but that was a fact of life long before Chavez entered the stage. What also pissed the right-wing off was that Chavez diverted a lot of that oil money to social programs instead of being like every other corrupt leader lining the riches pockets with the oil money. Also the fact that Chavez tried to make OPEC stronger, which meant higher prices for the U.S.

If the oil markets had done shitty for the Venezuelan oil companies the Bolivarian "Revolution"(which was not a revolution in any sense of the word) would have had a lot worse results. I think this all goes back to the point that just because something is nationalized doesn't mean it's socialist though. Do workers control the oil industry? No the government does with its state imposed bosses. Then some of that money is spent on social programs and people like you call others "infantile" for not accepting that as socialism. Is it bad? Not necessarily, it's pulling a lot of people out of poverty. But the socialist revolution isn't aimed at making workers lives within the capitalist system better.

Social Democrats=/=Socialists, not in the sense that Marx, Engels, Lenin, or Luxemburg meant it.

homegrown terror

23rd March 2013, 14:16

the way i see it, a "benevolent" capitalist state is kinda like having mice in your house rather than rats: yeah, they eat away less of your shit, but they still need to be removed. he was better for the venezolanos than, say, a bush, putin or obama would have been, but ultimately he's a relic of a broken and destructive past that should be swept aside.

now if anyone could provide proof to the rumors that he was holding court with true revolutionaries in secret, and laying the framework for a takeover, that would cast him in a far different light. i suspect, however, that that's just american propaganda designed to scare capitalist-supporting "loyal citizens" away from the big mean anti-american guy.

RedMaterialist

23rd March 2013, 17:32

the first step will always be a catastrophic overthrow of the current status quo,

The first "and only" step will always be revolution, according to the anarchists. The problem is that revolution is not something which can be ordered up by phone, like a pizza.

Rosa Luxembourg:

If it depended on the inflammatory “propaganda” of revolutionary romanticists ... then we should not even yet have had in Russia a single serious mass strike. In no country in the world – as I pointed out in March 1905 in the Sächsische Arbeiterzeitung – was the mass strike so little “propagated” or even “discussed” as in Russia....

If, therefore, the Russian Revolution teaches us anything, it teaches above all that the mass strike is not artificially “made,” not “decided” at random, not “propagated,” but that it is a historical phenomenon which, at a given moment, results from social conditions with historical inevitability...

The same analysis applies to revolution and mass strikes in Venezuela, Western Europe and the U.S. A revolution can only come from an unreconcilable class conflict, not from somebody yelling "revolution." The Bolivarian revolution in Venezuela was primarily a political revolution, not an armed insurrection.

The changes Chavez made were real, democratic steps toward socialism. That the changes did not result in a socialist paradise is relevant only for the revolutionary idealists.

RedMaterialist

23rd March 2013, 17:35

the way i see it, a "benevolent" capitalist state is kinda like having mice in your house rather than rats: yeah, they eat away less of your shit, but they still need to be removed.

The revolutionary idealist approach is to let the rats completely take over the house, then burn it down and start over, or better, when you see one rat immediately yell to the other people in the house to burn the house down. If you are forced to live long enough with the rats that is the only solution.

homegrown terror

23rd March 2013, 17:48

The revolutionary idealist approach is to let the rats completely take over the house, then burn it down and start over, or better, when you see one rat immediately yell to the other people in the house to burn the house down. If you are forced to live long enough with the rats that is the only solution.

i'd say a better analogy would be to poison the rats, rather than burn down the house. if you can remove the capitalists without completely dismantling their physical constructs (factories, farms, roadways etc) they can be repurposed by the revolution, rather than having to rebuild everything from scratch (but that might just be the syndicalist in me coming out)

RedMaterialist

23rd March 2013, 17:56

The oil industry in Venezuela was nationalized back in the 70's,

The 70's nationalization was for the benefit of the capitalists. But it, exactly as Engels predicted, laid the groundwork for the later expropriation by Chavez on behalf of the Venezuelan people, by transferring part of the wealth to them.

A Revolutionary Tool

23rd March 2013, 18:02

The 70's nationalization was for the benefit of the capitalists. But it, exactly as Engels predicted, laid the groundwork for the later expropriation by Chavez on behalf of the Venezuelan people, by transferring part of the wealth to them.

Yeah for some social welfare programs. You obviously can't tell the difference between those and socialism.

RedMaterialist

23rd March 2013, 18:22

And here Lenin speaks about Hugo Chavez:

Social-democracy then is what democratic socialism including Chavismo is today: bring about social reforms through parliamentary and legislative means.

The social and historical conditions Lenin (as well as Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Castro,) faced are entirely different from the conditions faced by Chavez. In 1917, Russia was on the verge of a complete social and economic collapse, the class conflict between the workers and the feudal and capitalist classes had become irreconcilable. What enraged Lenin, in my opinion, was that even as the capitalist state was disintegrating before their eyes, the social-democrats still wanted to retain the capitalist parliamentary structure instead of smashing it while they had the chance.

Chavez was not leading an armed insurrection but, rather, a political revolution.

We all want a revolution (to paraphrase that bourgeois parasite, John Lennon), and we all want to destroy the capitalist state, but we can't put the revolution on the calendar (Luxembourg). Chavez was engaged in a war of position, Lenin in a war of maneuver.

RedMaterialist

23rd March 2013, 18:29

Yeah for some social welfare programs. You obviously can't tell the difference between those and socialism.

On the contrary, the welfare state is part of the transition from capitalism to socialism. It tries to reconcile the class antagonisms in capitalist society, but it succeeds only temporarily. The welfare state appears to be cracking up, in Greece, Spain, Ireland, etc.. If in the U.S. the capitalist class destroys Social Security (the U.S. old age pension system) then class antagonism will erupt, possibly, in a revolution.

Tim Cornelis

23rd March 2013, 18:44

The first "and only" step will always be revolution, according to the anarchists. The problem is that revolution is not something which can be ordered up by phone, like a pizza.

Rosa Luxembourg:

The same analysis applies to revolution and mass strikes in Venezuela, Western Europe and the U.S. A revolution can only come from an unreconcilable class conflict, not from somebody yelling "revolution." The Bolivarian revolution in Venezuela was primarily a political revolution, not an armed insurrection.

The changes Chavez made were real, democratic steps toward socialism. That the changes did not result in a socialist paradise is relevant only for the revolutionary idealists.

Except the position you're arguing against is not advocated by anyone, hence a strawmen.

The first "and only" step will always be revolution, according to the anarchists.

I think you may be confusing anarchism with revolutionary socialism and revolutionary socialism with social-democracy.

The changes Chavez made were real, democratic steps toward socialism.

You keep saying that but you have yet to substantiate how.

That the changes did not result in a socialist paradise is relevant only for the revolutionary idealists.

I don't think you know what idealism means, you use it as a buzzword, like calling some left-wing infantiles. If anything, you're the idealist for believing the Western world and Venezuela, and presumably many other countries, have achieved socialism or are transitioning towards it despite the absence of a proletarian dictatorship. Indeed, that is idealist hogwash.

Additionally, our problem is not that it hasn't resulted in a socialist paradise, another strawman, but that it's not socialist period.

The social and historical conditions Lenin (as well as Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Castro,) faced are entirely different from the conditions faced by Chavez. In 1917, Russia was on the verge of a complete social and economic collapse, the class conflict between the workers and the feudal and capitalist classes had become irreconcilable. What enraged Lenin, in my opinion, was that even as the capitalist state was disintegrating before their eyes, the social-democrats still wanted to retain the capitalist parliamentary structure instead of smashing it while they had the chance.

Class antagonisms are always irreconcilable. They cannot be reconciled. It cannot be so that one day workers and capitalists have no contrasting class interests and the next they do. And the notion that the capitalist state was disintegrating is ahistoric. You're merely rationalising around your own arguments.

You keep on recycling leftist rhetoric, 'infantile leftism', 'idealism', but you don't even know what it means. None of what you said pertains to what Lenin wrote.

Follow your own advise: http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch03.htm

Chavez was not leading an armed insurrection but, rather, a political revolution.

We all want a revolution (to paraphrase that bourgeois parasite, John Lennon), and we all want to destroy the capitalist state, but we can't put the revolution on the calendar (Luxembourg). Chavez was engaged in a war of position, Lenin in a war of maneuver.

Here, here, another buzzword, bourgeois parasite. But who here is claiming that we can put the revolution on the calendar? That is not even remotely related to the topic we are discussing here! It's like we are discussing one thing and then you mention something entirely different as if it's somehow relevant. You keep throwing insane arguments at us, then when challenged or refuted you throw red herrings.

On the contrary, the welfare state is part of the transition from capitalism to socialism. It tries to reconcile the class antagonisms in capitalist society, but it succeeds only temporarily. The welfare state appears to be cracking up, in Greece, Spain, Ireland, etc.. If in the U.S. the capitalist class destroys Social Security (the U.S. old age pension system) then class antagonism will erupt, possibly, in a revolution.

Again with the reconciling of class antagonisms--it's impossible.

What you said implies that without welfare state there can be no revolution. Or did you mean the welfare state can be part of the transition?

Sinister Cultural Marxist

23rd March 2013, 19:32

I don't think people realize what happened with the nationalizations in Venezuela.

PDVSA was already a state company and had been since the 70s, as other people have pointed out. This became the bedrock of Venezuelan state spending and rock bottom petroleum prices, and the people did not want the government to privatize it any more.

PDVSA at the start of the Chavez area was in numerous joint ventures with various Capitalist industries, i.e public-private partnerships, to operate rigs and oil fields in the country. The terms of these partnerships, despite the fact that PDVSA was one of the world's biggest oil companies, tended to be in favor of the foreign oil investors (like Shell, Chevron, Exxon etc). This meant that they got more of the profit Chavez's government required that the companies in which it was a joint venture with to basically give up majority control so that the PDVSA became the dominant party, with the threat of full nationalization to those which did not comply. A number didn't, so they had their oil fields nationalized.

So yeah, PDVSA was already state-run, but the oil fields themselves were partnerships between the state enterprise and foreign corporate investors. I'm sure Wikipedia or something like that has an article that goes into more detail.

The bourgeois state, as a form, remains in Venezuela, but it is in the process of transforming itself into a socialist state. The next step is complete nationalization of the main industries, and then the elimination of the bourgeois class. It doesn't all happen overnight.

The problem is that there is a huge section of the ruling Socialist party which is bourgeoisie, and the radical working class sector of the party has yet to really challenge that sector.

n0b0dy

1st August 2013, 12:04

Hello from Germany everbody.
I'm a bit shocked that as far as i see nobody mentioned the communal councils in Venezuela. They are they most obvious difference to other welfare/keynesean etc. countries. They emerged as an initiative from below in 2005. Chavez catched this idea and spread it through the media. In 2006 the parliament adopted a law about the councils and in 2009 after a long debate in the councils a reform of the law was enacted. Until now there are about 44.000 communal councils with higher levels (commune, communal city). In the Future they should be the basis for a coummal state to replace to bourgeois state. Since 2013 the communal councils manage more money than mayors and even governors. The workers councils lack behind, but there are many experimental forms and a broadening debate about workplace democracy. Most people have a stronger identification with the community than with their workplace. The Plan Guayana for example aims to restructure the heavy industry in Guayana and establish full worker control in this sector until 2019.
For more information:
azzellini.net/node/2691

We've seen several revolutionary strategies in histrory. The social democrats wanted to reach socialim by state reforms, which failed totally. Some anarchists wanted to build a better society from below against the state and failed too because the state smashes every serious project. The problem with the leninists is that they want to smash the bourgeois state and abolish the old structures immediately. But the new has not been born and nobody has the masterplan, so the vacuum tends to be filled by bureaucrats of the leninist party.
The strategy used in Venezuela that can be found in theories by Nicos Poulantzas for example (Poulantzas: State, Power, Socialism 1978) is to take over the state democratically and while transforming the state institutions, opening up spaces for self-organisation from below. The occupied and worker-controlled factories in Argentina are great but the main problems are lack of legal recognition and capital. Its obvious that the workers movement in Venezuela are now in a far better situation. In 24th July there was the first national congress for worker control: venezuelanalysis.com/news/9761