Venezuela: Factories Without Bosses

[PRC-UTE]

Venezuela: Factories Without Bosses (http://lark.phoblacht.net/tg1008059g.html)

[Reds]

Were we failed in eurasia we will triumph in south america.

[Anarchist Freedom]

Ahh Chavez is doing quite well with venezula if you ask me.

[Redvolution]

Great article, thank you!

[bolshevik butcher]

This is a fantastic article that shows whats really happening in latin america. I bet when the U$ propoganda intenses we wont here any mention of these. Its amazing thet the U$ gets away with blatant lies, like calling chavez an enemy of democracy when his reforms have made vneezuela arguably the most democratic country in the world. In the first world it is important that we get out and tell people about whats really going on in venezuela.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 11 2005, 06:27 AM
This is a fantastic article that shows whats really happening in latin america. I bet when the U$ propoganda intenses we wont here any mention of these. Its amazing thet the U$ gets away with blatant lies, like calling chavez an enemy of democracy when his reforms have made vneezuela arguably the most democratic country in the world. In the first world it is important that we get out and tell people about whats really going on in venezuela.
Agreed. I would encourage comrades to look into forming or joining Bolivarian Circles in their areas. You can find out more about them by either going to the website of the International Bolivarian Circles or to the website of the Bolivarian Circle Cyber-Solidarity.

Circulos Bolivarianos Internacionales -- http://www.circulosbolivarianos.org/donde/...onal/index.html (http://www.circulosbolivarianos.org/donde/international/index.html)

Bolivarian Circle Cyber-Solidarity -- http://www.cybercircle.org/

Miles

[Severian]

From the article: "Upon visiting the factory however, I discovered that the factory is much more than just a working example of a socialist industrial unit. "

Yes, it's much more than a "example" of a utopian socialist approach. It is a step forward for the class struggle in Venezuela....which the writer has no feel for. There isn't a single worker quoted in the article, and very little on how the workers fought for and won these gains.

It is not, however, a "socialist industrial unit." The factory is 51% owned by the capitalist state, which also appoints part of the factory management...so not entirely "without bosses", either. Production continues at a low level, employing 300 workers compared to over a 1000 in 2002. Wages are lower than when it was run as a private company.


One of the two production lines in the mill that workers restarted two months ago was down on July 8. Production during this period has been running at 25 percent of capacity, workers said.

“The main reason is lack of raw materials,” mainly paper pulp that is imported from Chile, said mill worker Carlos Alberto González. Several workers said there is a political reason behind the lack of paper pulp. There is opposition within the government to making the new company a success, because it could set a “bad example” of what could be done with other private industries, the workers said.
The Militant (http://www.themilitant.com/2005/6931/693159.html) (articles covering three nationalized factories, Venepal is at the bottom)

An article from 2003 about the fight to get the government to nationalize these plant. (http://www.themilitant.com/2003/6736/673660.html)

The struggle continues. And it's the workers and peasants of Venezuela who are pushing it forward, not Chavez or any other capitalist political figure.

[bolshevik butcher]

Chavez is at the head of a mass movement, no doubt about that, but how exactly is he a capitalist political figure? And the hands of venezueal cmapagin is active in the UK. Theres links and articles about venezuela on www.marxist.com

[Severian]

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 11 2005, 11:11 AM
Chavez is at the head of a mass movement,
No, he reluctantly acts under the pressure of a mass movement. Read the articles. At times, his government even sends the National Guard against workers and peasants.

I think that should answer why he's a capitalist political figure, as well.

[bolshevik butcher]

If htis is true then why did he get over 60% of the votes in a recent election?

[More Fire for the People]

This question is often asked; does Socialism work?
No one can truly form a proper opinion on socialism working or not because society has never reached socialism. The brief attempts of the Paris Commune, earlier soviets, and Shanghai Commune all were crushed.


Or is there a place for it in today's world? Many on the right would trumpet the fall of the Soviet Union as the death knell to Socialism/Communism as a working ideology.
Socialism will always have its place in the world because socialism is an inevitable development of society, just as capitalism inevitably came from feudalism.


Some Neo-cons go even further and trumpet the end of the USSR as the end of history.
Yes, well neo-conservatives are not the brightest group of people.


Countries right across the South American Continent are experiencing an ever-growing socialist trend with various land reform, labour and students movements pushing the collective social consciousness' of the continent further to the left side of the political spectrum.
Socialism is not free health care, land reform, and workers’ councils. Socialism is based upon two things: proletarian political power and the abolition of the wage-system.


The largest thorn in the side of the US imperialist state is Venezuela and its elected President Hugo Chavez who is using his considerable mandate to reverse the US backed trend of corruption that has blighted the country and to implement sweeping that evenly spread the resources of the oil rich country.
Yes, but lets not forget that Chavez is a social democrat and not a socialist.


One concrete example of this is the recently nationalized INVEPAL factory complex. INVEPAL is the country's paper making industry that was a privately enterprise until the owners declared the factory bankrupt as an act of economic sabotage by the anti-government bosses. Instead of accepting the massive job loss, the workers formally requested the permission to run the factory as a collective in cooperation with the government. The government agreed and the factory now operates successfully in the socialist model of workers control.
If the workers are still receiving wages, then it isn’t under a “socialist model of workers control”. Also, imperialist countries often nationalize bankrupt industries to prevent economic failure and privatize them when they become profitable again.


Upon visiting the factory however, I discovered that the factory is much more than just a working example of a socialist industrial unit. The factory unit itself produces paper for the books/stationary used in the government's education and health missions as well as its official stationary. It also produces other products such as paper bags used by shops and pharmacies and larger bags used for agricultural feeds and cements etc.
European capitalist countries do this too.


One of the democratically elected administration staff had arranged for a tour of the factory for me with one of the workers. The first thing that struck me was how orderly the place looked. I still do not know why this should have come as a shock to me. I perhaps had a very wrong subconscious misconception of how a factory without bosses would have looked. I can be forgiven for my surprise at the revelations that followed.
Administrator is just a fancy name for a boss.


The factory, as a socialist model, not only works but works more efficiently. Paper production has increased since the workers annex. The workers are contributing to the success of their collective effort with more energy without the exploitation of a private boss. They have realized their potential in collective effort and this has injected a vitality in them that is allowing them to fulfil it. Moreover, they are also working to fulfil the potential of the factory complex as a whole.
All this is just an improvement of efficiency, a key to socialism but also nice for the capitalist and state-capitalist.


The factory complex lies in app.5,600 hectares of what was mostly private, unproductive land. There are also a number of amenities that were once exclusively for the middle management level of the private factory for example a baseball field and small stadium. There is also a swimming pool and a series of chalet housing with a restaurant. Up until a few months ago these amenities along with other structures in the complex had fallen into a state of great disrepair. Using the profits created by the factory, the collective have began an extensive program of refurbishment, opening the complex up to the workers for their use and welfare. The stadium is open for the workers or their children to use for sports as will the pool in a few weeks time. The chalets and other buildings in the complex are receiving refurbishment to the roofs and air-conditioning and are used by workers permanently based here. The restaurant has been refurbished and has been transformed into a canteen for the workers to enjoy a subsidized lunch in cooler surroundings. A shop has been opened offering a wide range of subsidized goods.
Wow, state-capitalism with perks for the workers.


Showing admirable imagination and social consciousness, the factory workers have asked the government to provide agricultural experts to come to the site to develop the remaining 5,000 hectares into productive agricultural land. The government has obliged and sent Venezuelan and Cuban experts to draw up and develop plans to implement irrigation schemes to make the land suitable for crop production, livestock including egg bearing chickens, dairy and beef cows, pigs and buffalos.
Self-sufficiency is a plus for socialism but the capitalist may use it to boost local economic development then grow out of self-sufficiency.


The experts are not planning to do this on their own. They are training people from local towns to take part in their training schemes and to take responsibility of the land in different collectives and make it productive for them. The schemes are aimed at all ages from schoolchildren to adults.
Yeah, this is pretty much done in Europe and America as well.


The factory complex may be viewed as a microcosm of a socialist society and not only proving that it does work but is also advancing the concept of socialist cooperation throughout Venezuela and other factories are beginning to take inspiration from this shining example.
I’m convinced that the writer of this article doesn’t understand what socialism is fundamentally.

And for the last time, Chavez isn't a socialist.

[bolshevik butcher]

So he's put the oil company under workers control, nationlising hte bank and looking at putting over 1000 other factories under workers control. Hes calling for captialsim to be transcended, but hes not a socialist?

[More Fire for the People]

Yes, because socialism is born out of a proletarian socialist revolution with the abolition of the wage-system while social democracy nationalizes industry under reforms.

[bolshevik butcher]

Look, are you denying that whats happening in venezuela is a negative develpment?

[D_Bokk]

Chavez is being a smart leader. He is slowly making Venezuela Socialist because if he were to make Venezuela socialist quickly - the US would undoubtedly try to remove him from power.

How is this not a Proletarian Movement? The Proletariat elected him and held huge protests during the attempted coup. The coup attempt was the revolution.

I think the people who are anti-Chavez are the Leninists who somehow believe Marxist-Leninism is the only possible means of achieving Socialism and ultimately Communism. I'm getting tired of the close-minded people who denounce socialists for not doing everything right away. Have you ever been a leader of a socialist striving country? I doubt it... I would assume it's a lot harder than you think.

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 11 2005, 02:51 PM
Look, are you denying that whats happening in venezuela is a negative develpment?
Its a positive step towards social democratic capitalism brining Latin America into world politics.

[Stormshield]

That article ignites a spark of hope somewhere, definitely!

[PRC-UTE]

sorry double post

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 04:59 AM
Great article, thank you!
Glad you liked it. it was written by Tomas Gorman of the Irish Republican Socialist Party, he travelled there recently.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 03:06 PM
Chavez is being a smart leader. He is slowly making Venezuela Socialist because if he were to make Venezuela socialist quickly - the US would undoubtedly try to remove him from power.
Uh, the U.S. has tried to remove him from power now. You can't make a major social change without pissing off some very wealthy and powerful people.

And they will succeed in removing Chavez sooner or later, just as they removed Allende in Chile, as long as the old army remains intact. That is the difference between Venezuela and Cuba. The old army, Batista's army, the army of the bosses, was disbanded, and a new, revolutionary army created. That's an essential part of making a revolution.

Don't be too complacent because one coup attempt failed. There were failed coup attempts against Allende, too.

Pace is not the question. The question is making a revolution, working people taking power, or carrying out some reforms...while the old state machine remains intact and will sooner or later crush everyting which has been built.


How is this not a Proletarian Movement? The Proletariat elected him and held huge protests during the attempted coup.

And defeated the bosses' strike against the Chavez government. Yes. Also the workers and peasants are pressing Chavez forward, demanding he nationalize shut factories, give idle lands to the peasants, etc. Working people are leading, and at best Chavez is following.


The coup attempt was the revolution.

What?


I think the people who are anti-Chavez are the Leninists who somehow believe Marxist-Leninism is the only possible means of achieving Socialism and ultimately Communism.

This is a basic Marxist idea we're talking about here. That the emancipation of the working class can only be the act of the workers ourselves. There is no savior, especially no officer from the bosses' army, who will make it all better.

Also, that the bosses' army and the bosses' state have to be smashed. That's something that's been learned by experience in every workers' revolution. Including those led by people who did not start out as Marxists or Leninists, as in Cuba.

Working people have paid with blood for that knowledge. We can't afford to ignore it....and pay with blood again, as in Chile.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Severian
And they will succeed in removing Chavez sooner or later, just as they removed Allende in Chile, as long as the old army remains intact. That is the difference between Venezuela and Cuba. The old army, Batista's army, the army of the bosses, was disbanded, and a new, revolutionary army created. That's an essential part of making a revolution
Allende was different, during his time there was no easy way to contact all of his people or other people in different countries to protest. During the coup attempt led by the rich, the military was the one who retook power for Chavez. Chavez, being part of the military in his earlier years gained the trust of the many people inside the military. His soldiers are fine, but the generals are what he needs to worry about.

Pace is not the question. The question is making a revolution, working people taking power, or carrying out some reforms...while the old state machine remains intact and will sooner or later crush everyting which has been built.
How is the old machine still intact? Shortly after Chavez came to power he made a new constitution. He severed tries with old Venezuela and set forth on Socialism. Democracy stayed intact because that's the governmental system he chooses to believe in.

And defeated the bosses' strike against the Chavez government. Yes. Also the workers and peasants are pressing Chavez forward, demanding he nationalize shut factories, give idle lands to the peasants, etc. Working people are leading, and at best Chavez is following.
That's good then. Shouldn't that be the case for all Socialist revolutions?

What?
Venezuelans went into the streets to protest for Chavez as a large group of Bourgeois marched to the Presidential Palace. Riots broke out after a Bourgeois sniper (likely) started shooting at the crowd. Venezuelans began to fire at the sniper. After the Bourgeois took power, the Proletariat then took too the streets.

I don't know, but I wonder if the military would have retook the Palace for Chavez had the millions of people not been there. Either way when the Proletariat got their way and ousted the Bourgeois, this is when they realized the amount of power they held.

This is a basic Marxist idea we're talking about here. That the emancipation of the working class can only be the act of the workers ourselves. There is no savior, especially no officer from the bosses' army, who will make it all better.
Isn't this exactly what the Proletariat is doing? You yourself said that the Proletariat is leading and Chavez is following.

Working people have paid with blood for that knowledge. We can't afford to ignore it....and pay with blood again, as in Chile.
In the end, less blood will be payed in Venezuela. Because the people have a puppet leader, they will not need to attack the government and suffer casualties. They will be able to lead the country right into Socialism without a revolutionary war.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by Severian+Aug 12 2005, 01:21 PM--> (Severian @ Aug 12 2005, 01:21 PM)And they will succeed in removing Chavez sooner or later, just as they removed Allende in Chile, as long as the old army remains intact.[/b]

But the old army (the pre-Bolivarian army, that is) no longer exists. After the April 2002 coup, the army was purged. Hundreds of officers that were sympathetic or loyal to the capitalists were thrown out. The Caracas metropolitan police force was outright disbanded. In addition, Chavez has instituted universal arming of the people and the organization of "workers' and people's militia" -- attached to the Bolivarian Circles and Houses, and responsible to them -- throughout the country.


Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 01:21 PM
Don't be too complacent because one coup attempt failed. There were failed coup attempts against Allende, too.

There have been three coup attempts so far. But, the two that came after April 2002 did not have the means to take power.


Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 01:21 PM
And defeated the bosses' strike against the Chavez government. Yes. Also the workers and peasants are pressing Chavez forward, demanding he nationalize shut factories, give idle lands to the peasants, etc. Working people are leading, and at best Chavez is following.

This is true. And Chavez himself acknowledges this.


[email protected] 12 2005, 01:21 PM
Also, that the bosses' army and the bosses' state have to be smashed. That's something that's been learned by experience in every workers' revolution. Including those led by people who did not start out as Marxists or Leninists, as in Cuba.

This was the great lesson of the Paris Commune. But, at the same time, we should recognize that the situation in Venezuela is not just "another Chile".

Miles

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 08:17 PM
But the old army (the pre-Bolivarian army, that is) no longer exists. After the April 2002 coup, the army was purged. Hundreds of officers that were sympathetic or loyal to the capitalists were thrown out. The Caracas metropolitan police force was outright disbanded. In addition, Chavez has instituted universal arming of the people and the organization of "workers' and people's militia" -- attached to the Bolivarian Circles and Houses, and responsible to them -- throughout the country.
Yeah, if that were true, peasants conducting land occupations wouldn't lack even the weapons necessary to defend themselves from private thugs hired by the local landowners.

Since in fact the peasants lack those weapons, they definitely haven't been armed and organized on the scale necessary to resist military coups and imperialist invasions....If these "workers' and people's militias" in fact exist on a large scale, they seem to be badly misnamed.

Chavez reportedly has bought a lot of AK-47s lately, Washington has been complaining about it. The question we gotta ask is, why don't peasants in Barinas state for example have any of those AK-47s? (http://www.themilitant.com/2005/6928/692803.html) There was an even better article on one of these land occupation in the next week's Militant, but it's not up on the website yet.

It's fine that Chavez has conducted a purge of officers loyal to the pro-imperialist opposition, but that isn't the same as a revolutionary replacement of the capitalist officer corps....realistically whatever degree of militia organization has taken place is probably more comparable to the Dignity Batallions organized by Noriega in Panama than the revolutionary organizations of the toilers which are needed.

[RevolucioN NoW]

Yeah, if that were true, peasants conducting land occupations wouldn't lack even the weapons necessary to defend themselves from private thugs hired by the local landowners.

Chavez is at the moment arming the people, but it is a slow process due to the slow pace of weapons importation and his attempts to keep the armed forces on side, there are still non revolutionary sections of the Army high command who would see attempts at mass arming of the masses as an attack on their power, they may even attempt a second coup with CIA backing.

But popular defence militias (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4635187.stm) are being created in Venezuela, the first step to arming the people.

Chavez has learnt from the Allende experience as well as the Cuban revolution that it is neccesary to take the road to socialism very slowly in a world dominated by the U$, but we must not simply dismiss Chavez because he hasnt armed the people or nationalised industry overnight, on the contrary we need to watch and learn as the Venezuelan revolution takes its own course to socialism.

[Severian]

Originally posted by RevolucioN [email protected] 13 2005, 07:24 PM
there are still non revolutionary sections of the Army high command who would see attempts at mass arming of the masses as an attack on their power, they may even attempt a second coup with CIA backing.
There may be some truth to that. Of course it's one of the justifications that was also raised by Allende & co for not arming the masses. Really, most of the reasons given here for subordinating workers' struggles to the Chavez government, were raised in Allende's Chile as well.

And of course what you say is totally contrary to "Communist League"s claim that "the old army (the pre-Bolivarian army, that is) no longer exists." Possibly the two of you "Bolivarians" should take a minute to debate out which contradictory excuse to use?

From your BBC link:

The reserve unit has no weapons, Mr Cabrices says, but he wants some. He interrupted an interview to ask a reporter if he know anyone who could bring them arms.

And this is apparently a showcase unit headed by Cabrices, a well known figure in Chavez's party.


Chavez has learnt from the Allende experience as well as the Cuban revolution that it is neccesary to take the road to socialism very slowly in a world dominated by the U$,

Since Allende also argued it was necessary to go "very slowly", how is that learning from the Allende experience? If any "Bolivarians" had learned a thing from the Allende experience, wouldn't you at least be aware that you were raising the same arguments Allende did?

Again, pace is not the primary question. The main question is, what road are you on...a revolutionary road, or a road of trying to convince working people to place our confidence not primarily in each other, but in a bourgeois nationalist leader, allegedly progressive sections of the officer caste, those landlords and capitalists who support Chavez, etc?

But how is going slowly supposed to magically protect anyone from the U.S? Do you imagine that it's possible to adopt a course to socialism without Washington noticing, just because it's done slowly? If anything, the present moment would seem to offer an opportunity to arm, train, and militarily organize the masses while Washington is busy elsewhere...why kill time until they finish up elsewhere and turn to Venezuela?

[RevolucioN NoW]

There may be some truth to that. Of course it's one of the justifications that was also raised by Allende & co for not arming the masses. Really, most of the reasons given here for subordinating workers' struggles to the Chavez government, were raised in Allende's Chile as well.

Well if Allende had armed the masses it would have sped up his demise at the hands of constitutionalist armed forces officers, this may be the case in Venezuela as well, arming the masses may sway some in the high command to follow CIA directives and launch a military coup.

At the moment half of the Venezuelan population is in support of socialism, and this figure is rising, Chavez is winning the battle of ideas, soon a coup will in fact be impossible due to mass popular resentment of such action, then an arming of the people would be possible


Since Allende also argued it was necessary to go "very slowly", how is that learning from the Allende experience? If any "Bolivarians" had learned a thing from the Allende experience, wouldn't you at least be aware that you were raising the same arguments Allende did?

They are similar ideas, but due to different historical conditions Chavez now has the upper hand, the slow process to socialism is actually WORKING in Venezuela, the people ARE taking over industry and running it for themselves, now the MASSES are pushing Chavez in a revolutionary direction, not the other way around. This is not a repeat of the Allende incident, there is no going back from a socialist Venezuela now.


Again, pace is not the primary question. The main question is, what road are you on...a revolutionary road, or a road of trying to convince working people to place our confidence not primarily in each other, but in a bourgeois nationalist leader, allegedly progressive sections of the officer caste, those landlords and capitalists who support Chavez, etc?

You obviously do not understand the class situation in Venezuela, there are NO "landlords and capitalists" who support Chavez, their lands and wealth are being confiscated. Most of the officers in the military are behind Chavez, again due to differing historical conditions in Venezuala (the military was never training in the OAS, officers were promoted on merit rather than membership of a class...)

Chavez's path is a revolutionary one, a revolution does not have to look like the october revolution or even the cuban one, those were insurrections, revolution is a process, often a slow and gradual one on the road to socialism, and this is the road Venezuela is on now.


But how is going slowly supposed to magically protect anyone from the U.S? Do you imagine that it's possible to adopt a course to socialism without Washington noticing, just because it's done slowly? If anything, the present moment would seem to offer an opportunity to arm, train, and militarily organize the masses while Washington is busy elsewhere...why kill time until they finish up elsewhere and turn to Venezuela?

The U$ knows full well of Chavez's intentions, he calls for socialism nearly every speach, but at the moment the U$ doesnt have a pretext to invade, and an arming of the masses before the revolutionary process is ready would give them that opportunity.

Give the Venezuelan revolution time and there will be an arming of the people, recently Chavez has drawn up plans to dispand the entire police force and instead rely on peoples militias loyal to the revolution, the process is indeed picking up.

[cheXrules]

i didnt know there any such thing as state capitalism

state coporatism, yes, but sorry, state capitalism is an oxymoron

[Severian]

Originally posted by RevolucioN [email protected] 14 2005, 12:07 AM
At the moment half of the Venezuelan population is in support of socialism, and this figure is rising, Chavez is winning the battle of ideas, soon a coup will in fact be impossible due to mass popular resentment of such action, then an arming of the people would be possible
What? If "mass popular resentment" alone could reliably stop coups, then Allende would never be overthrown. If the danger of a coup could really be prevented that way, what need would there be to arm the masses at all? You're not even being consistent.


They are similar ideas, but due to different historical conditions Chavez now has the upper hand, the slow process to socialism is actually WORKING in Venezuela, the people ARE taking over industry and running it for themselves, now the MASSES are pushing Chavez in a revolutionary direction, not the other way around. This is not a repeat of the Allende incident, there is no going back from a socialist Venezuela now.

All of those things were also true in Chile - especially that the masses were more revolutionary than Allende. Every time someone tries to explain why Venezuela is different, they list things which are actually the same.


You obviously do not understand the class situation in Venezuela, there are NO "landlords and capitalists" who support Chavez, their lands and wealth are being confiscated.

Nonsense. The Chavez government definitely disavows even the intention of carrying out a wholesale confiscation of capitalist property. Its basic course, while anti-imperialist, is aimed at building up Venezuelan national capitalism. A section of the Venezuelan capitalist class supports this aim.


Chavez's path is a revolutionary one, a revolution does not have to look like the october revolution or even the cuban one, those were insurrections,

So far, all victorious revolutions have involved the armed overthrow of the state. I don't rule out the possibility that it might happen differently, through the armed defense of an elected government....but when you say "revolution is a process, often a slow and gradual one on the road to socialism," that's false. Far from "often", this will be the first time if it works.


The U$ knows full well of Chavez's intentions, he calls for socialism nearly every speach, but at the moment the U$ doesnt have a pretext to invade, and an arming of the masses before the revolutionary process is ready would give them that opportunity.

How would that be a pretext? Venezuela has every right to arm its population, and it's hard to see how they could successfully get people whipped up over that.

It would piss off Washington, of course...place them in a situation where they might think, "It's now or never. Either we act now or we won't be able to take them down at all."

But really, what kind of argument is this? It's an argument for remaining helpless at the mercy of a bully, because any attempt to defend yourself will only piss him off worse.

[bolshevik butcher]

The poeple are being armed, both peasnats and the industrialised protaletariat, this is as has already eben mentioned a slwo process but it would be farcical to stop doing this because of the threat of a U$ invasion, surley this will be a dtterent to any invasion, and also it will be a means of defence in the event of an invasion.

[RevolucioN NoW]

What? If "mass popular resentment" alone could reliably stop coups, then Allende would never be overthrown. If the danger of a coup could really be prevented that way, what need would there be to arm the masses at all? You're not even being consistent.

Allende was elected on 37% of the vote, Chavez now has 70% popularity, that is a big difference. Events which led up to the coup in Chile included strikes by the capitalist run union bodies, including a devastating one by Transport Workers, this sabotaged the economy and allowed for the coup to take place with little popular resentment, there was some indeed, but the masses were unfortunately not with Allende although more militant sections indeed stockpiled weapons to support his government.

It is also worth noting that it WAS mass popular resentment that brought down the April 11 coup of 2002 against Chavez, once it was clear that the masses were opposed to the coup loyal sections of the Venezuelan military acted and arrested the coup plotters and their appointed cabinet.

It is necessary to arm the masses in Venezuela, and this IS occuring slowly, the masses are now DEMANDING weapons, the masses have indeed surpased Chavez, as they SHOULD do dialectically in a revolutionary situation, Chavez is procuring the weapons to make this possible, but more large scale arms shipments will only provide further pretext for U$ military actions


All of those things were also true in Chile - especially that the masses were more revolutionary than Allende. Every time someone tries to explain why Venezuela is different, they list things which are actually the same.

Was there ever large scale factory occupations by the masses in Chile?, not on as large a scale as is happening in Venezuela at the moment for sure. Allende by and large respected bourguois property, except for his nationalisation of the Nickel industry (similar to Chavez's re-nationalisation of the oil industry). This is the difference, Chavez has said that hundreds of factories are soon to be nationalised and vast tracts of farmland are being redistributed. The revolutionaty process is much further along in Venezuela than in Chile, the masses are more militant and the Chavez government is both welcoming and encouraging this.


Nonsense. The Chavez government definitely disavows even the intention of carrying out a wholesale confiscation of capitalist property. Its basic course, while anti-imperialist, is aimed at building up Venezuelan national capitalism. A section of the Venezuelan capitalist class supports this aim.

Which mythical "section" of the capitalist class supports Chavez? The entire upper and middle class has been opposed to his regime since the begining, the head of the business lobby was appointed by the coup leaders as president after April 11, the capitalist class knows that the depending of the revolutionary process in Venezuela is a THREAT to their interests in the future, and they are acting on this by calling for Chavez's overthrow in the opposition (capitalist) media every day.

There is NO national capitalism being built up in the Venezuela, if this were the case then wouldnt the re-nationalised PDVSA (oil company) have been handed over to local entrepenuers rather than its workers? Wouldnt Chavez be calling off the growing mass movement for socialism, saying that "this is far enough" and asking them to accept "capitalism with a human face"? why does Chavez CONSTANTLY call for socialism and ACT on this?


So far, all victorious revolutions have involved the armed overthrow of the state. I don't rule out the possibility that it might happen differently, through the armed defense of an elected government....but when you say "revolution is a process, often a slow and gradual one on the road to socialism," that's false. Far from "often", this will be the first time if it works.


yes "so far" we have not seen a successful socialist state develop in this fashion, but there is no reason to say that it cannot. Chavez is heading down the path that Cuba took, admitadely much slower since it does not have the cover of Soviet Nuclear missiles like Revolutionary Cuba did, but the process is unfolding. All revolutions are different, to apply the schema that "we must have an armed revolution and immediate arming of the people and mass nationalisation" as some groups do is romanticist, dogmatic and abstract.


How would that be a pretext? Venezuela has every right to arm its population, and it's hard to see how they could successfully get people whipped up over that.

It would piss off Washington, of course...place them in a situation where they might think, "It's now or never. Either we act now or we won't be able to take them down at all."

But really, what kind of argument is this? It's an argument for remaining helpless at the mercy of a bully, because any attempt to defend yourself will only piss him off worse.

Chavez and the Venezuelan masses are walking a tightrope, they are progressing towards socialism but know that if they make one wrong step Washington and its columbian allies will come down on them like a tonne of bricks.

To call for the instantaneous arming of the masses right now is in effect condemning the Venezuelan revolution to death under Washington's bombs, it is pure arrogance for us in First world countries to talk down to the Venezuelan masses on what they "should do", we should instead support, critically if neccesary their brave march towards socialism.