Venezuela head seeks party merger

[ComradeR]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6192105.stm

Seems Chavez is planing on creating a single party, the "Unified Socialist Party of Venezuela" Any thoughts?

[Severian]

That article's comparison of facile comparison of Chavez and Castro is wrong, for the simple reason there hasn't been a revolution in Venezuela. The old state machine is still basically intact.

In this context, the proposal for a united party is not so wonderful. On the contrary: workers need to increase their political independence from Chavez and his party, the "Fifth Republic Movement", while siding with him against imperialism and the pro-imperialist opposition.

This is a live question in Venezuela: there's been some heavy conflict within the pro-Chavez labor federation over it. The faction insisting on more independence from Chavez has the most support among the union ranks - but the others have so far blocked democratic elections for the union leadership.

[Whitten]

Hmm. This could be good or bad. The disadvantage would be it eliminates any major independent more hard-line communist party from the running. The good is that there's a good chance it could help to force through some more strongly socialist policies with the member bases of the smaller parties in the left bloc.

[metalero]

this ain't a revolutionary party or somehting like, but rather some practical move that will make easier the democratic socialist tasks while confrontig the imperialist. This is something more like the Popular Unity in Chile under Allende; I see it as positive, in the event of abscence of violent agression from the imperialist and their lackeys; and I know that won't be the case, so working class must keep their militant actions, in labor struggles, community issues, etc and also in the political chavez spectrum through the most militant factions.

[metalero]

this ain't a revolutionary party or somehting like, but rather some practical move that will make easier the democratic socialist tasks while confrontig the imperialist. This is something more like the Popular Unity in Chile under Allende; I see it as positive, in the event of abscence of violent agression from the imperialist and their lackeys; and I know that won't be the case, so working class must keep their militant actions, in labor struggles, community issues, etc and also in the political chavez spectrum through the most militant factions.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2006 07:19 pm
This is something more like the Popular Unity in Chile under Allende;
Yes, that's the problem.

[Louis Pio]

As I see it this will mean that the fight of the masses (who have voted for socialism) against the bureucrats will move into one party and make it easier to despose of them.
It seems the new party will bypass the non-election of leaders that have existed in alot of the bolivarian parties, that's of course positive.
One of the problems though is that the UNT because of petty internal fights over leadership seems to be incapeable of playing an independent role.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2006 12:30 pm
As I see it this will mean that the fight of the masses (who have voted for socialism) against the bureucrats will move into one party and make it easier to despose of them.
How do you figure that makes it easier? If its easy to transform a bourgeois party, or even a social-democratic party, into a workers party from within, why hasn't anyone ever succeeded in doing so?

It's not like it hasn't been tried often or persistently enough, from the U.S. Democratic Party to the British Labour Party to....many others in many countries.


It seems the new party will bypass the non-election of leaders that have existed in alot of the bolivarian parties, that's of course positive.

How do you know it will? Promises?


One of the problems though is that the UNT because of petty internal fights over leadership seems to be incapeable of playing an independent role.

Is it petty to fight over whether the workers' organization should play an independent role - or just cheerlead whatever Chavez does or fails to do? Is it petty to fight over whether the union leadership should be elected? Because those are the issues in the UNT's internal conflicts.

[Louis Pio]

How do you figure that makes it easier?

Because of the revolutionary mood of the massbase, who is feed up with the careerists.


How do you know it will? Promises?


Yes that's what I heard, and im sure the masses of the movement will hold Chavez to his promise. A topdown intiative is doomed anyway which would make this discussion obsolete. Since exactly the attitude towards this party (there has been talks of it for a long time), has been that for it to become reality would mean breaking with the current undemocratic ways of organising we see in many of the bolivarian parties.


Is it petty to fight over whether the workers' organization should play an independent role - or just cheerlead whatever Chavez does or fails to do? Is it petty to fight over whether the union leadership should be elected? Because those are the issues in the UNT's internal conflicts.

This is not all of the fight, you seem to forget how last congress of the UNT fucked up over personal issues. But no the fight for democracy and an independent role of the workers are not petty fights, but an essential question.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2006 07:19 pm

How do you figure that makes it easier?

Because of the revolutionary mood of the massbase, who is feed up with the careerists.
But a revolutionary mood in the masses does not by itself guarantee anything. History is full of cases where revolutionary workers were misled into blind alleys by reformists. Sure, people know they're being misled, they exert pressue, they try to find a way forward, but the reformists break up unity and momentum to the point where the class enemy can make a comeback.


Yes that's what I heard, and im sure the masses of the movement will hold Chavez to his promise.

See above. Chavez has a lot of unfulfilled promises out there.


This is not all of the fight, you seem to forget how last congress of the UNT fucked up over personal issues. But no the fight for democracy and an independent role of the workers are not petty fights, but an essential question.

Yes, I remember - the slavishly pro-Chavez bureaucrats raised a lot of petty and personal issue in order to distract from the real issues involved, and avoid having a leadership election. Let's not help them by pretending those petty issues were the real thing going on.

[Louis Pio]

But a revolutionary mood in the masses does not by itself guarantee anything. History is full of cases where revolutionary workers were misled into blind alleys by reformists. Sure, people know they're being misled, they exert pressue, they try to find a way forward, but the reformists break up unity and momentum to the point where the class enemy can make a comeback.


That's why it's also quite important to have a distinct revolutionary current in this party.
On another matter Chavez last speech was his most radical yet, and if not fulfilled his support would slowly vanish, I don't think he's stupid, but nows this. That should at least be important despite what ones fancies describing him as.


Yes, I remember - the slavishly pro-Chavez bureaucrats raised a lot of petty and personal issue in order to distract from the real issues involved, and avoid having a leadership election. Let's not help them by pretending those petty issues were the real thing going on.

That was the one issue, me talking about the personal stuff was since I didn't remember all the differences :blush: . The problem with the camp who rightly wanted elections (as CMR and Freteco wanted too obviously), was that they wanted to split UNT away from the bolivarian movement alltogether. That would have split the UNT and done enormous damage. Also this would have ment giving up reaching the quite large informal sector. It was an ultra-left mistake, although somewhat understandable, but still a big mistake.

[Cheung Mo]

Originally posted by Severian+December 20, 2006 02:00 am--> (Severian @ December 20, 2006 02:00 am)
[email protected] 19, 2006 07:19 pm
This is something more like the Popular Unity in Chile under Allende;
Yes, that's the problem. [/b]
The difference? Chavez is overwhelming popular and most of his domestic adversaries were compltely descredited in the late 1980s and early 1990s, whereas right-wing/Christian-democratic vote splitting played a crucial roll in Allende's electoral victory (although he was more popular at the time of the coup than he was at the time of the election). Furthermore, the military is largely behind Chavez, which was far from the case with Allende. Finally, Chavez has a lot more friends in his own back yard.