Venezuela: The fraud of Chavist ‘socialism

[GoaRedStar]

This is a article from internationalism.org


We are publishing here an article from Internacionalismo (the ICC's publication in Venezuela) from October 2005 on the situation in Venezuela. The article shows well the reality of the ‘socialism’ of Chavez, who has been in power for seven years, after years of division of power between the right (Christian democracy) and left (AD, social democratic), years during which the leaders of both parties filled their own pockets so arrogantly and brazenly that they couldn’t help preparing the ground for a demagogue like Chavez, who is himself accused of being a dictator by his adversaries.

In fact the authoritarianism of Chavez is not directed against the old political parties which are corrupt to the core, and which tried to organise a farcical coup d’etat against Chavez. Rather, beyond Chavez’s empty rhetoric against “capitalists”, the entirety of his politics has but a single aim: to control the population, to subdue the working class. Chavez has created around himself a following of protégés, just as corrupt as his predecessors’, by dispensing money from oil sales when the living conditions of the population go from bad to worse. Such is the new hero of the ‘alternative-worldists’ and leftists of all persuasions.

At the beginning of December, elections were held in Venezuela. Abstention reached 80%. This level of abstention cannot be understood solely from the fact that only Chavist candidates were presented; more than anything it shows that the population, and especially the workers, have had their fill of Chavist ‘socialism’; and not only of Chavism but of the whole of the bourgeoisie and all its tricks.

The continual violent confrontation between the Chavist bourgeois factions in power and the bourgeois factions in opposition have hidden a basic reality: there is a division of labour between them faced with the need to attack the living conditions of the proletariat. In other articles in Internacionalismo we have analysed the emergence of Chavism as a necessity for the national capital given the collapse of the bourgeois parties which had been in power until the end of the 90s. In this sense the Chavez government is in perfect continuity with previous bourgeois regimes when it comes to taking measures against the proletariat to face up to the economic crisis and survive on the world market.

This division of labour takes place on two levels, which are interlinked and dependent on each other: the permanent ideological offensive to weaken the consciousness and militancy of the working class; and the unstinting attack on its conditions of existence.
A relentless attack on the consciousness of the proletariat….

To preserve its utterly decadent social system, the bourgeoisie must breathe fresh air into its ideological apparatus and so prevent the proletariat, the “gravedigger” of capitalism (as Marx put it in the Communist Manifesto), from becoming conscious of the fact that the only way to put an end to the misery and barbarism inherent in the capitalist system is the proletarian revolution.

Even before Chavez’s triumph in 1998, the Chavists and the current opposition were competing over what is the best form of democracy, the first defending ‘participatory democracy’ and the second ‘representative democracy’. Seven years went by in this tango which corresponded to the electoral rhythm of the bourgeoisie: on the one hand, Chavism trying to build a foundation for its ‘Bolivarian revolution’; on the other, his opponents trying to weaken it by calling Chavez a dictator. With the incessant electoral campaigns, the bourgeoisie has managed to create a polarisation, a net in which the working class has become trapped, cultivating divisions in the class which have resulted in a loss of class solidarity and a significant decrease in struggles against both private capitalists and the state.

Moreover, the Chavist bourgeoisie, in order to establish a social basis for its ‘Bolivarian revolution’, has developed a whole network of organs of social control (the Bolivarian circles, commissions, militias, etc), which allows it to dilute the workers in the mass of the ‘people’. The opposition is trying to do the same thing with its ‘citizens’ assemblies’. In this way, the autonomy required by the proletariat is dissolved into the petty bourgeois strata and other oppressed sectors of the population. And among the workers themselves, Chavism has introduced its own version of co-operativism, the various forms of co-management and self-management directly promoted by the parties and organs of the state and aimed at conferring a ‘proletarian’ character on the new government. In fact these co-operatives are a means of ideologically controlling the workers and to subject them to increasingly precarious working conditions.

The biggest ideological attack on the consciousness of the proletariat has been the way that the Chavist bourgeoisie identifies its statist project with ‘socialism’. Of course, this is not the first time that the bourgeoisie has disguised its state capitalist policies with ‘marxist’ and ‘revolutionary’ verbiage: the Stalinist bourgeoisie, following the defeat of the Russian revolution, imposed the most ferocious exploitation on the Russian proletariat for nearly 60 years in the name of ‘Soviet socialism’, as did all the ruling classes of what was called the ‘socialist bloc’; and today the bourgeoisies of Cuba, China and North Korea are doing the same thing against the proletariat of their respective countries. However, this monstrous lie of identifying Stalinist state capitalism with socialism could never have had the ideological impact it had on the world working class without the participation of the bourgeoisies of the opposing American bloc: while the Russian bureaucrats subjected the proletariat to the most savage exploitation and repression in the name of the ‘socialist fatherland’, the western bourgeoisies, with the USA at their head, bombarded the proletariat of their countries with campaigns about the shortages and evils of ‘socialism’ and ‘communism’, presenting democracy as the best of all possible worlds.

It’s the same division of labour which we are now seeing in Venezuela: while the Chavist bourgeoisie exploits the Venezuelan proletariat in the name of the ‘Bolivarian revolution’, the preamble to the ‘socialism of the 21st century’, the opposition gets on with attacking the ‘Castroite communism’ of the Chavists and lauding the marvels of democracy. In sum, these two bourgeois factions form a pair in order to maintain confusion and weaken class consciousness.

This ideology of the ‘socialism of the 21st century’ is complemented by that of ‘anti-imperialism’, which uses popular hostility to the imperialist intrigues of the US bourgeoisie to line the proletariat up behind the Chavist bourgeoisie, just as numerous other bourgeoisies around the world are trying to profit from all the difficulties of the American bourgeoisie in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Middle East by attempting to make everyone believe that the only imperialism in the world is that of the USA. This allows them all to camouflage their own imperialist appetites. The division of labour between the Chavist and oppositional bourgeois factions also comes into play in this ideology: the Chavists voice a virulent anti-Americanism, using the provision of oil as a weapon of blackmail, while the opposition is pro-American. But in the final analysis, they agree on defending and consolidating the interests of the Venezuelan bourgeoisie in its zones of influence: the Caribbean, Central America and the Andean countries (Colombia, Peru, Bolivia and Ecuador).

Heres the link http://en.internationalism.org/node/1719

[McLeft]

Sorry but I don't believe any of this, Chavez is the only hope of the Venezuelan people, he has vowed to end povery by 2021, we shall see if this will happen (I personally think it will) in 2021 the big mouths of all who said this (your source) will be well shut, it will come as a slap on the face :lol:

Chavez is a good man,

Trust me

McLeft

[bolshevik butcher]

Along the same lines mcleft, I dont think its a case of just chavez being a 'good man', Chavez is the leader of a mass movment of the increasingly radicalised Venezuelan working class. He is the only leader in the world tallking about workers control, the only one prepaired to go beyond beugorise law and the only one calling on and supporting workers seizing the means of production.

[redstar2000]

I thought this article was an extremely coherent materialist analysis of the situation in Venezuela.

The responses -- "Chavez is a good man" or "Chevez talks about workers' control" -- seem rather inadequate...in fact, not really serious responses at all.

For example, are conditions for ordinary people actually deteriorating as the article claims?

Or is it the case that the "more privileged" sections of the working class are "losing ground" while the enormous numbers of truly poor are "gaining ground"?

And if some of those things are true, what are the reasonable conclusions that should be drawn from that?

Consider this...


Originally posted by ICC
To put an end to the bourgeoisie (Chavist and opposition), the proletariat must channel its indignation to reinforce its class identity, solidarity among proletarians and its consciousness of the fact that it is the only class which can and must lead the struggle of the exploited to put an end to the barbarism to which capital subjects us.

Is that a reasonable perspective in Venezuela at this moment in history?

Is there any reason to think that's going to happen?

Or is that just as much a "pious hope" as the opinions about Chavez's "virtue" or his rhetoric about "workers' control"?

Revolutionaries have to do more than just cheer for self-proclaimed "good guys".

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Xanthus]

That was the single largest piece of tripe and bullshit about Venezuela that I've yet seen outside of a bourgeois rag.

Has the author ever been to Venezuela?
No?
Well, that much is obvious... if he had, he would see that the bourgeoisie is 100% rabidly against Chavez. To call him bourgeois is an insult to all intelligent thought.

If the author had been to Venezuela, he would see that nobody calls it socialist! It's only in the north that anyone would consider using that word. Chavez does not call Venezuela socialist, nor do any Chavistas. I can tell he first hand that Venezuela continues to be (despite small progressive changes) an extremely oppressive capitalist state, but for once the oppression is not state sponsored.

Yes, there was a high abstension rate that election, which surprised me to, but can be explained by numerous events, and not only the boycott. For example, there were massive storms and mudslides all over the country at the time of the election. During the recent recall referendum, a HUGE majority voted no, and the abstention rate was low. How can the writer take one election result and not look at any others? That is totally dishonest and unjournalistic.

Has he seen the marches of the Venezuelan masses?
Obviously again, no.
They look something like this http://www.americas.org/images/ows/news/features/200312_venezuela/chavez-march.jpg. I have stood on that street and it is a huge space. Chavez's marches number in the MILLIONS. Trotsky defined a revolution as occuring when the masses enter the field of politics. That photo, is of a revolution.

What Chavez does do is CALL for socialism. Has the writer heard him speak?
No again?
Well again, it's quite obvious because if he HAD heard him speak he would have heard him talk about how he cannot impliment socialism from above and how the Venezuelan masses must rise up, educate themselves, and take on the work of changing society. SOCIALISM CAN ONLY BE BUILT THROUGH MASS ACTION!

Actually, Chavez came to power as a democrat without a clear class perspective, except for a desire to help the masses, but having no idea how to do that. One of his first acts was to state publically that nobody need worry, he is not a communist, and he will not expropriate anyone.

But it didn't work. The third way is impossible because as Trotsky said, if you stand in the middle of the road, he get hit by traffic coming from both directions.

But the key is, Chavez is no idiot. When the prominent marxist Alan Woods went down to Venezuela following the coup, Chavez told him he wasn't a marxist. Alan asked why, and the reply was "because I haven't read Marx". Well, since then, Chavez has started to read marx, and not just Marx, but Trotsky, Luxembourg, and countless others. He is a voracious reader. And he has learned alot, learned while the masses learn. Since then, Chavez has said that there is no third way, that it is impossible. In every speech since, he has called for a deepening and strengthening of the revolution. This is not something a man trying to consolidate power does. A man trying to consolidate power wants masses who are dosile. Chavez instead has gone on TV as he does weekly, and reccomended to Venezuelans to themselves read Marx, Trotsky, Woods, and others. This has had a HUGE effect. If you walk through the poorer regions of Caracas now, you can now see book stalls in the marketplaces filled with revolutionary literature!
Has the author been to Caracas to see this?
Obviously not!

Honest revolutionaries see this as it is, a revolution, and an IMPERFECT revolution. That's because events in the real world do not fit into the neat little boxes people try to make for them, they are ever changing, dynamic, and each is different. In other words, they are dialectic.

Not merely any revolutionary, but any leftist, anywhere in the world has a DUTY to further and support this process (in a critical manner, always, but with unconditional critical support) in any way they can, and to not only deny that duty, but to actively attempt to sabatage opinion of left-minded activists and revolutionarys as any so called 'comrade' who would further articles such as this is an offense. It is an offense to me as a revolutionary, it is an offense to all my comrades who daily particpate in the struggle in Venezuela, many of whom give up everything to fly from places as far as Europe to play their role in furthering the cause of marxism within Venezuela, and moreover, it is an offense to the Venezuelan masses, who are rising up to take power back for themselves.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Xanthus
Has the author ever been to Venezuela?

The article was actually written by someone in Venezuela and was written for Venezuelans to read...the link is to an English translation.


To call him bourgeois is an insult to all intelligent thought.

Why?


I can tell him first hand that Venezuela continues to be (despite small progressive changes) an extremely oppressive capitalist state, but for once the oppression is not state sponsored.

A state apparatus "cut loose" from its class base (the bourgeoisie) but not under the control of the working class?

Does the name Napoleon III ring a bell?


In other words, they are dialectic.

Whenever someone invokes "the dialectic", we all may reasonably assume that they either don't know what they're talking about or have first-hand knowledge of the subject but can't explain it.


...to actively attempt to sabotage opinion of left-minded activists and revolutionaries as any so called 'comrade' who would further articles such as this is an offense.

It says that what is happening is not a "socialist revolution". You have said nothing to indicate otherwise.


It is an offense to me as a revolutionary, it is an offense to all my comrades who daily participate in the struggle in Venezuela, many of whom give up everything to fly from places as far as Europe to play their role in furthering the cause of Marxism within Venezuela, and moreover, it is an offense to the Venezuelan masses...

Perhaps all those "offended" should challenge the author to a duel. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[xprol]

I'm no expert on this, but it seams to me the the man and his people are deffinatly getting up the noses of the US imperialist. And that's more than can be said for the average 'left'.

There are lots of movements (and 'leaders') around the world that don't start from a revolutionary communist tradition and might or might not turn out to be the best option. But slagging off anti-imperialists movements and leaders only encourages reactionaries. Criticise yes, but never give ammo to the enemy like so many so called 'lefts' are in the habit of doing, from the comfort of their academic tradition.

Edit. I have just reread the article. It is in fact a very reactionary piece. Just who is writing this poison?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by xprol
I have just reread the article. It is in fact a very reactionary piece.

On what grounds do you make this assertion?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[GoaRedStar]

On the grounds that he is a reformist and anyone who criticize his reformist highway towards communism is a reactionary.

I wasnt at all surprised that the ones screaming at this article were all Trotskyists.The ultimate goal of a Trotskyists is to be able to participate in bourgeois democracy.

[xprol]

"On the grounds that he is a reformist and anyone who criticize his reformist highway towards communism is a reactionary."

"I wasnt at all surprised that the ones screaming at this article were all Trotskyists.The ultimate goal of a Trotskyists is to be able to participate in bourgeois democracy."

Until we Communists get our act together and start to demonstrate that we have a superior theory buy developing perspectives for communist revolution, we are going to see all kinds of anti-imperialist movements taking the initiative against imperialism. If the Communists can't do it why wouldn't anyone else have a go?

But the best news is, the ignorant and traitorous, faction forming "enterist" Trotskyists and there "peaceful coexistence with capitalism" museum Satanists rivals, are not even in the running any more. We will watch with interest to see what this enterist, reformist middle class shower will do next to prop up theire class position within the imperialist system.

[GoaRedStar]

I dont think you understood me here but I was actually attacking you for having a reformist stand and the last part is against the other poster who are actually Trotskyists.

[xprol]

Can you all stop messing about. If communists can't sort it out someone else will have a go. And good look to em.

Any fool can write a long crit of any anything and every fool should.

But for crying out loud, can you manage for one second to grasp the stark, startlingly obvious fact, that the communist perspective was almost irreparably compromised (to say the least) by the insane "peaceful coexistence with imperialism" crap that museum Stalinism came out with. Add the Trotskyists "enter into the reformist parties" missleadership bullocks, and you would wonder why any worker would even buy your paper.

Just look at the world as it is. Now explain it. And argue about it. That is the best revolutionary practice you, me and everyone can ever do.

[RebelDog]

I reject the idea that just because there has been no total revolution in Venezuela that we should not support its progressive government. I went to a meeeting last week to hear a guy that is just back from Venezuela. He said that while the situation in the country still hangs on a knife edge there has been very positive things happening. Workers are taking over factories and are being more and more radicalised day by day. He said that you coudn't get coffee for a couple of months towards the end of the year. My first thought was that the workers will turn against Chavez if there are shortages, but it turns out the owners of the coffee roasting factories went on 'strike' because Chavez ordered more money to paid to the peasant coffee bean growers.

What is happening in Venezuela is not model socialism but its a step forward. I think a little humility is in order here. Hands up who would like what is happening in Venezuela to happen in whatever neo-liberal paradise they live in. If workers started taking over factories in Glasgow, Liverpool or London I would be ecstatic and declare my support.
Chavez is embarrasing the Tony Blairs of this world with a display of progressive politics. Blair's attack on him was pathetic and made him look like a man, nervously aware of his own party's past history, that had to resort to play ground language.

Don't forget what position we are in. I am always desperate for good news in our collective struggle. I think Chavez is 'good news.'

[red team]

The article makes a number of questionable claims:

1. Chavez is partnering with the opposition parties in a kind of (good cop, bad cop) routine to fool the workers

Response: that's funny. I thought they were trying to kill him! I suppose the coup was just political theatre. Yeah, riiiiight! :lol:

2. Chavez is simply using the Bolivarian Circles as his political body guards.

Response: If that is true, can somebody please provide me with the evidence that the Bolivarian Circles are similar to the elite "guard" units of despotic regimes. Are they similar in structure and ideology as let say the: Republican Guards - Iraq, Revolutionary Guards - Iran, S.S. Nazi Germany?

If there is evidence that this is in fact the case then this assertion may be true. In the absence of evidence nothing can be determined from this claim.

3. Chavez is using anti-imperialist rhetoric to further the imperialist interests of the national Venezuelan bourgeois.

Response: Using the strategy of factory occupation by workers and co-management sure does increase the profit margins of the national bourgeois! :lol: Again, yeah riiiiight! :lol:

Also, what's the Marxist definition of imperialism? I never knew that some of the world's largest transnational corporations have their base of operations in Venezuela? This is certainly news to me. :lol:


Aside from this, whether or not Hugo Chavez is indeed a Socialist remains to be seen, but claiming that he is Bourgeois is beyond nonsense.

[Guerrilla22]

Chavez's policies in Venezuela don't resemble the ideal socialist state in the eyese of orthodox marxist so we shouldn't support him? True Chavez isn't perfect, but we should alos focus on the reality of what the Chavez administration means to the Venezuelan poor and world politics as a whole.

The Chavez administration has made great strides in actually helping the margalized few in Venezuela, these programs even his critics will admit are innovative and rare in the area of the world wher eeconomic inequality is most prevalent.

He also has provided a check on US hegemony in the region as well as world wide by actually standing up to the US, something most Latin American leaders, even those from socialist parties usually are unwilling to do.

[redstar2000]

No one here would deny that Venezuela presently serves as a "focus" of anti-imperialist sentiment in Latin America. Any country's regime that serves to sabotage (even verbally) the imperial ambitions of the United States is bound to impress us favorably.

But if we are to actually understand what's going on in another country, we simply can't rely on whatever rhetoric may be convenient for that regime to use.

We have to look at actual class realities and ask: does the Venezuelan working class have state power in that country?

Are they "about to"?

The Chavez "fans" think it's "reactionary" to offer honest answers to those crucial questions.

We should "just cheer" and "hope for the best".

My opinion, as you know, is that Chavez actually represents the class interests of the "radical" bourgeoisie in Venezuela; the ones who want to seriously develop Venezuela into a modern capitalist country...instead of a "Philippines with oil". The traditional kleptocratic elites in Venezuela were content to rule and plunder the country as agents of U.S. imperialism. Their hostility to Chavez and the people who support him is quite genuine...because they really are "on their way out".

That's not the same as a real revolution.

And it does us no good to pretend otherwise. Consider our embarrassment when Chavez does "something awful"? At some point that seems certain to happen...and we'd be like those poor fucked Stalinists in 1939 trying to "explain" why signing a treaty with Hitler was "a progressive act".

Or like the poor fucked Maoists trying to "explain" why Mao's meetings with Nixon were "a good thing".

Even tanker trucks full of "dialectics" were of no help at all. :lol:

To avoid that sorry fate, all we have to do is be honest and call things by their real names.

Chavez is not the "Trotsky" of Venezuela, he's the Franklin D. Roosevelt.

If we tell people that, then no one will be "shocked" or "demoralized" when he behaves like a "left" bourgeois politician.

It's what he is!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Tekun]

I agree with alot of positions that have been presented here
And I will refrain from labeling Chavez, too much of his political info is unknown or distorted by the media, for us to specifically label him

I agree that we can't rely on Chavez's rhetoric to carry out a true socialist movement
He might be anti-imperialist, but condeming imperialism will do nothing to empower the proletarian in Venezuela
Despite the fact that he's close with other anti-imperialist nations, including Cuba, does not make him a socialist or determined to bring about a socialist revolution
He uses these appearances and anti-imperialist speeches to rouse support for his position in Latin America

I also concurr that as far as steps towards a socialist movement, there has been very few at that, if u can call them "socialist"
The fact is that the power still lies within the state and the bureaucrats
Poverty is still rampant, and as long as the state is capitalist, poverty will remain
And unless state power is taken by a united proletarian and peasant movement, the proletarian will never receive what he/she rightfully deserves

In addition, I also believe that the only way for Venezuela to become socialist, and then possibly communist is for the masses of people to take power from Chavez and the bureacrats, and create a system by the proletarian and for the proletarian
If Chavez wants to see such an event, he would gladly give up power, educated the masses, and then allow a proletarian movement to seize power

But the fact is that the conditions don't seem ripe for such an event
My take on the situation, is that people want change and reform, but would oppose a socialist revolution due to lack of knowledge (especially the poor or those who would benefit from sucha system) and an abundance of anti socialist propaganda
And therefore, I praise Chavez for educating Venezuelans
Because if Venezuelans are educted and by this they gain an understanding of their surroundings, they - by their own strength - will seize power

Yet, there is also a strong opposition party in Venezuela
That I have no doubt in saying is supported and funded by the US
And any sign of class unrest and revolution, wouldn't certainly get the US imperialists involved and the leftist gov and movement would crumble

I also admire Chavez for protesting US imperialism, which many other leaders have acquiesced to
Especially his stance and the support he gathered against the Free Trade Agreement
Such a man might not be a comrade, but is definitely an associate that could possibly join our ranks if he educated himself, in the future

However, there is still much to be done if the masses are to take power
And IMO, the only way for that to occur is if Chavez truly informs and allows the proletarian to take power, even if this means giving up his position and then destroying the present Venezuelan gov

[McLeft]

What if Chavez isn't Socialist, Communist, Marxist, Trotskyist or whatever but what if what he is doing in venezuela has just kickstarted a whole new ideology? a whole new manner of leftist thought? His own devised method of helping the struggle triumph? What if he just is original in what he does? What if his so-called 21st Century Socialism is his new label? Chavez is a 21st Century Socialist.

His stance against US imperialism is something to praise but it goes way beyond rhetoric. he alone has managed to convince many of his counterparts in the neighbouring countries to stand up against the US. This shows that his 21st Century Socialism is not just meant to benefit Venezuelans, but also the marginalised of the world, especially the rest of Latin America, his influence is admirable, his popularity in Latin America is something that no other Latin American leader since Allende has been able to achieve.

People say that he wants to control the population. Then can someone please explain why the citiznes of Venezuela are coming in their 1000s to volunteer and form a new civil guerrilla that will be albe to protect their land from any possilble and likely invasion from the United States? the truth is that Chavez isn't forcing them to do this, the people are coming to him to help his progressive movement and it's paying off.

He must be doing something big because his popularity is enormous in Venezuela as welll as in Latin America, look at the Mar del Plata demonstrations! people came from all over the continent to cheer Chavez and it was on that day that the death of the FTAA was proclaimed. A more recent example is the World Social Forum held in january, this time it wasn't just Latin Americans, it was people from all over the world from as far as India and China.

Comrades, this man is certainly doing something big and that's something we must all praise, Venezuelans are the major benefactors but those benefits are increasingly leaking out of Venezuela and into the rest of the world.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by McLeft
What if Chavez isn't Socialist, Communist, Marxist, Trotskyist or whatever but what if what he is doing in Venezuela has just kickstarted a whole new ideology?

Then it would show.

He'd be saying things that no one had ever heard before. That's what a "new ideology" would do.

In addition, ideologies do not "fall out of the sky"...they arise from the existence of classes and their purpose is to provide a coherent framework for the expression of class interests.

They're not just "good ideas" that some "really smart person" simply "happened to think of".

Chavez has not said anything of substance more radical than a Swedish social democrat c.1935.

I don't see anything "new" about that at all.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[321zero]

Castro wasn't any kind of communist when he won power. Then when the Yanks made it very clear what their attitude was towards the Cuban revolt he gravitated towards the Soviets and became some kind of 'communist'.

The Yanks have made it pretty clear already what their attitude towards even Chavez minimum program is (lets not worry about whether he's an unconscious marxist or not :D )

There is no Soviet Union (or any alternate great power) for Chavez to run to now, so events will force a resolution one way or another - Venesuala will be disciplined and punished by imperialism - or its anti-imperialism will become revolutionary - with or without the big Cheese himself.

[beltov]

Hi,

Just a few points on Venezuela. First, the article at the start of this thread was written by the International Communist Current's section in Venezuela - Internationalismo - that is by our comrades have actually live their and have first hand experience of the Chavez type of 'socialism'. The questions posed by Redstar2000 on trusting the Chavist version of socialism are quite correct. At least he hasn't lost his critical approach, unlike others who find even the slightest criticism so offensive!

Second, some questions. Can socialism be introduced without the working class destroying the existing capitalist state and establishing its own power? Can socialism be introduced in a single country? We think not. Clearly this hasn't happened in Venezuela, therefore the bourgeoisie must still be in power, as it is in Cuba, as it was in Chile under Allende, Nicaragua under the Sandinistas, etc. True there are violent conflicts within the ruling class, but faced with the working class they have a division of labour: a left wing and a right wing.

We highlighted the danger posed by Chavez at the time of the Referendum in 2004. In the introduction to our appeal to the working class in Venezuela we wrote:


The victory of Hugo Chavez in the referendum on his presidency was not a triumphant for the proletariat and poor masses in Venezuela. Rather, as this Appeal to the workers of Venezuela and the world by the ICC's section demonstrates, it represents a powerful blow against the working class. The Appeal, whilst being written on the eve of the referendum, shows that no matter who won the vote the perspective for the working class was one of increasing ideological and economic attacks, along with an acceleration of the profound political crisis rocking the Venezuela bourgeoisie. Chavez's victory will allow him and his henchmen to continue their campaign to mobilise the non-exploiting strata and the working class behind their life and death struggle with the other sections of the Venezuelan bourgeoisie opposing them. Faced with this, the opposition will be forced into ever more desperate efforts to defend itself by overthrowing Chavez.
http://en.internationalism.org/wr/277_venappeal.htm

As the Appeal demonstrates parts of the working class are already lining up behind one or other of the fractions. And the prospects for the coming period can only be the very real possibility of the explosion of a barbaric civil war. The proletariat's only response to this chaos is the defence of its autonomy; refusing to line up behind the 'revolutionary' Chavez or the opposition of the 'elite', and instead defending their class interests against both of these faces of the capitalist state in Venezuela.

Beltov,
for the ICC.

[Tekun]

Beltov-

Do u or the ICC, believe the conditions are ripe for the proletarian to seize power?
I mean, there is a great anti-socialist position in Venezuela supported by the American and an unorganized uprising would certainly be destroyed by the imperialists

In addition, do u believe (from his position/rhetoric) that Chavez has enough sense and principle to give up power if the proletarian and peasant are ready to govern themselves?

[xprol]

"Los Angeles Times' -- -- WASHINGTON