Chavez wants to create single socialist party

[R_P_A_S]

according to report on BBC...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6465769.stm

[Whitten]

What starts, exactly? These parties are all in the minority anyway.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Different workers parties sounds more reassuring than a single one.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Only if you're a liberal.

[bolshevik butcher]

This is a fantastic move forward and secures the future of the revolution especially if this party is going to be rid of bueraucrats and controlled by the grass roots as outlined.

[YKTMX]

Seems entirely sensible to me.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Only if you're a liberal.

How so?

Several proletarian parties instead of one, as I see it, is more reassuring. More like a seperation of powers within the workers movement, so that no leader fuck things up like we have seen so many times in history.
We don't want another Stalin, do we?

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 04:37 pm

Only if you're a liberal.

How so?

Several proletarian parties instead of one, as I see it, is more reassuring. More like a seperation of powers within the workers movement, so that no leader fuck things up like we have seen so many times in history.
We don't want another Stalin, do we?
You can't say that more political parties means "more democracy", it doesn't work like that.

And Stalin came to power because there was NO Proletarian parties (the CPSU by that time was a bureaucratic instrument of the state), not because there was "only one".

[Andy Bowden]

Having one revolutionary socialist and workers party means that all the militants of the class are in one organisation, which makes communication and working together far more effective than if they were fragmented into other organisations - particularly when there is no or little political differences between them.

I think a more important question is, can a revolutionary party be created at the demand of the President, of what is still a capitalist country?

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 19, 2007 05:35 pm
I think a more important question is, can a revolutionary party be created at the demand of the President, of what is still a capitalist country?
That isn't how this situation came about. This has been a demand of the left of the boliarian movement for sometime now. This is more Chavez' response to the moves of the Venezuelan workers than some great attempt launched from above.

[Ander]

This simply serves to centralise power in the hands of one person which history has proven more times than not to be a bad course of action.

I suppose we shall see.

[An archist]

a sinlge party state.
and who is head of the party and the state?
right

[The Feral Underclass]

This will eventually lead to the repression of left-communist and anarchist organisations.

[Raúl Duke]

This will eventually lead to the repression of left-communist and anarchist organisations.

This seems to always happen when authoritarian socialists gain more power.... :(

Maybe RAAN was right.... :unsure:

[Janus]

A certain portion of those groups owe their support and political base to the alliance with Chavez and his party so Chavez's move will be more of a symbolic and practical consolidation than anything else.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 19, 2007 11:52 pm
This will eventually lead to the repression of left-communist and anarchist organisations.
Which is a shame, because there are so many influential anarchist and left-communist organizations active in Venezuela.... :rolleyes:

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by YKTMX+March 19, 2007 04:40 pm--> (YKTMX @ March 19, 2007 04:40 pm)
[email protected] 19, 2007 04:37 pm

Only if you're a liberal.

How so?

Several proletarian parties instead of one, as I see it, is more reassuring. More like a seperation of powers within the workers movement, so that no leader fuck things up like we have seen so many times in history.
We don't want another Stalin, do we?
You can't say that more political parties means "more democracy", it doesn't work like that.

And Stalin came to power because there was NO Proletarian parties (the CPSU by that time was a bureaucratic instrument of the state), not because there was "only one". [/b]
I understand the criticism of pluralist democracy.

However, we are dealing with a capitalist country, where much of the power is centralized into a minority bureacracy, so more parties atleast help to prevent centralization in a capitalist country.

[Chicano Shamrock]

Well Chavez has always said he was a Marxists-Leninist in the Trotsky sense. Why is this a surprise to anyone?

Plus the parties aren't what matters in a socialist society. What matters are the soviets and if they are taken seriously.

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by manic expression+March 20, 2007 02:54 am--> (manic expression @ March 20, 2007 02:54 am)
The Anarchist [email protected] 19, 2007 11:52 pm
This will eventually lead to the repression of left-communist and anarchist organisations.
Which is a shame, because there are so many influential anarchist and left-communist organizations active in Venezuela.... :rolleyes: [/b]
That&#39;s actully the funniest thing I&#39;ve heard the ultra left state on Venezuela yet. Yes it&#39;s really all a venture to suppress the ever growing anarchist elements inside the Venezuelan working class <_<

The workers councils/soviets are vital and are growing in number and influence, however a party to group the most advanced working class elements together is also an imporatnt thing to drive forward the proccess.

[Tower of Bebel]

I can see a possible doom scenario. Chavez needs to bann capitalism and any structure that can be used against the people of Venezuela. Therefore the people need more power. A single party? No problem, but the people have to rule it.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 19, 2007 10:05 am
Only if you&#39;re a liberal.
It&#39;d make more sense to say: this merger will only sound like a good idea if you&#39;re a liberal.

It involves the subordination of all the existing "socialist" parties to Chavez&#39; bourgeois nationalist regime and party. Chavez has always had a certain streak in this direction - one of his first proposals as president, long before he&#39;d done much economically that was progressive, was to attempt a massive state intervention into the internal affairs of the labor unions.

But no matter what progressive-sounding rhetoric is used to justify it, the intervention of the bourgeois state into the internal affairs of the unions cannot be a good thing.

It&#39;s necessary to defend the Chavez government from imperialism and the pro-imperialist opposition - as an independent working-class force.


Well Chavez has always said he was a Marxists-Leninist in the Trotsky sense.

And of course words speak louder than actions. Everyone is whatever they label themselves to be. A rose by any other name would not be a rose.

***

As for one or several parties under workers&#39; rule certainly it would be wrong to start banning workers&#39; parties, unless they&#39;ve joined the armed counterrevolution. Anytime there&#39;s only a single party, that contributes to the state and party becoming entangled, which increases the bureaucratisation of both.

But that&#39;s not necessarily a reason to oppose the merger of workers&#39; parties which may have little reason for their separate existence except for their different origins, their past.

[VukBZ2005]

From what I am getting directly from Venezuela, Chavez has said that the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (USPV) would be a party based on the electorial battle units that now exist. that is, from the bottom-up instead of the top-down, as the BBC article and many other articles are implying. Just because he wants all the parties that support him to join the Socialist unity party does not mean that he is consolidating his real political power into one force that would "subvert Venezuelan democracy". Let us take a "wait and see" approach.

[Guerrilla22]

If the venezuelan communist party wants to stay revolutionary they should refuse to take part in this. Once absorbed by Fith Republic, they would have no choice but to follow their reformist agenda.

[TC]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 19, 2007 04:05 pm
Only if you&#39;re a liberal.
exactly.


this is the difference between the liberal bourgeois facade of democracy and presentation of a false choice and real democracy.



If you&#39;re worried about play acting democracy, then you want multiple parties and term limits so a choice between basically identical candidates makes people feel that voting actually matters. If you want real democracy, than whats actually important is that the economy is structured in a democratic way, then state administration simply functions to facilitate workers control of the economy. The notion that multiple parties are needed to ensure democracy presumes that there are to be competing interests balanced against each other, as is the case in bourgeois states where different bourgeois investment needs have to be balanced against each other, but this isn&#39;t true when creating a workers state, the working class don&#39;t need to compete with themselves as the bourgeois do.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by manic expression+March 20, 2007 03:54 am--> (manic expression @ March 20, 2007 03:54 am)
The Anarchist [email protected] 19, 2007 11:52 pm
This will eventually lead to the repression of left-communist and anarchist organisations.
Which is a shame, because there are so many influential anarchist and left-communist organizations active in Venezuela.... :rolleyes: [/b]
I don&#39;t really see what your point is? Perhaps you are right, but do you agree that the state should repress them nevertheless?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by bolshevik butcher+March 20, 2007 05:51 pm--> (bolshevik butcher @ March 20, 2007 05:51 pm)
Originally posted by manic express[email protected] 20, 2007 02:54 am

The Anarchist [email protected] 19, 2007 11:52 pm
This will eventually lead to the repression of left-communist and anarchist organisations.
Which is a shame, because there are so many influential anarchist and left-communist organizations active in Venezuela.... :rolleyes:
That&#39;s actully the funniest thing I&#39;ve heard the ultra left state on Venezuela yet. Yes it&#39;s really all a venture to suppress the ever growing anarchist elements inside the Venezuelan working class <_< [/b]
That&#39;s not what I "stated" though was it - at all? How have you managed to conclude all of this from my very plain and simple assertion?

Where did I assert that the purpose of Chavez&#39;s actions were to repress anarchists? :wacko:


The workers councils/soviets are vital and are growing in number and influence, however a party to group the most advanced working class elements together is also an imporatnt thing to drive forward the proccess.

Which will most likely see the repression of left-communist and anarchist organisations.

[Louis Pio]

If the venezuelan communist party wants to stay revolutionary they should refuse to take part in this. Once absorbed by Fith Republic, they would have no choice but to follow their reformist agenda.


Hmm actually the venezuelan communist party has acted quite reformist, so it would be good for them to get more in touch with revolutionaries than sticking to themselves.
The communist party had a policy of caution, you know the typical stalinist reformist thing: "we can&#39;t go to socialism too fast, it will provoke repression" and so on. When Chavez speeded up his rhetorics and talked about creating socialism they were sort of left behind, now they changed their line as to not be totally discredited in the eyes of the masses.

Btw it puzzels me how this discussion can turn into the sort of anarchist trauma of how everybody want to repress them. Since anarchism and so called "left communism" is quite luckily totally dead as a massforce it&#39;s not really in the picture. Unless of course a few anarchist want to take to their old tactic of throwing bombs, but then they would deserve to be repressed quite harshly.

If this party is build from the bottom up it is a big step forward. As it would help bypass the beurucrats. Orlando Chirinos and his group who stood for a line more independent of the bolivarian movement inside UNT has even realised this and are planning to join. The other choice would also be quite secterian in my oppinion.

[Guerrilla22]

Hmm actually the venezuelan communist party has acted quite reformist, so it would be good for them to get more in touch with revolutionaries than sticking to themselves.
The communist party had a policy of caution, you know the typical stalinist reformist thing: "we can&#39;t go to socialism too fast, it will provoke repression" and so on. When Chavez speeded up his rhetorics and talked about creating socialism they were sort of left behind, now they changed their line as to not be totally discredited in the eyes of the masses.

Or possibly because they want real socialism, not the endegeneous growth model that Chavez is trying to implement. However, that is not to say that that is the exact reason they oppose being absorbewd into one party.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+March 20, 2007 11:13 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension @ March 20, 2007 11:13 pm)
Originally posted by bolshevik [email protected] 20, 2007 05:51 pm

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 20, 2007 02:54 am

The Anarchist [email protected] 19, 2007 11:52 pm
This will eventually lead to the repression of left-communist and anarchist organisations.
Which is a shame, because there are so many influential anarchist and left-communist organizations active in Venezuela.... :rolleyes:
That&#39;s actully the funniest thing I&#39;ve heard the ultra left state on Venezuela yet. Yes it&#39;s really all a venture to suppress the ever growing anarchist elements inside the Venezuelan working class <_<
That&#39;s not what I "stated" though was it - at all? How have you managed to conclude all of this from my very plain and simple assertion?

Where did I assert that the purpose of Chavez&#39;s actions were to repress anarchists? :wacko:


The workers councils/soviets are vital and are growing in number and influence, however a party to group the most advanced working class elements together is also an imporatnt thing to drive forward the proccess.

Which will most likely see the repression of left-communist and anarchist organisations. [/b]
You&#39;re kidding me, right? You said:

"This will eventually lead to the repression of left-communist and anarchist organisations."

How is that not asserting that these actions will lead to such repression?

Oh, and the funny thing about this is that there are NO SIGNIFICANT left-communist or anarchist groups active in Venezuela. There really isn&#39;t ANYTHING to repress in the first place.

[Louis Pio]

Or possibly because they want real socialism, not the endegeneous growth model that Chavez is trying to implement. However, that is not to say that that is the exact reason they oppose being absorbewd into one party.


The Venezuelan Communist Party has went out publicly and said "Socialism is not viable at this point", that was the point I was trying to make about them. Their leadership are not really revolutionaries, but more like reformists. But that&#39;s no wonder since they follow the old discredited menshevic stage theory, as other communistparties before them.

[AvanteCamarada]

Someone recommended this site for me about Venezuela&#092;&#39;s unification of parties . Unfortunately , I cant log on onto the site . The site is www.wowomg.com
Can someone please tell me if there is any interesting info about Venezuela&#092;&#39;s PSUV on that www.wowomg.com site ?

[Enragé]

This truly is not a good thing.

Look, you can say, that if you put everyone together in one party and build it democratically, that you will then have..well.. a great and effective party.

The point however remains, that Chavez has shown undemocratic, authoritarian inclinations before, and "uniting" the "left" under the leadership of Chavez (which is what it will amount to) will therefore only lead to a situation resembling dictatorship.
I think people here have a hard time understanding that you do not need to be in the exact same organisation to be able to act unified, in solidarity with eachother.

[Brekisonphilous]

I don&#39;t really see it as a good thing, but there is some good to come of it.
The people of Venezuela have expressed their desire to go further with socialism. This seems like a pretty big step in that direction. But time will tell, as we will see if Chavez is just talking marxist ideology or is actually planning on living up to it.

I admire the direction Chavez is leading Latin America, but I don&#39;t have my expectations too high for someone that is modeling their country after Cuba. Hopefully when he says that, he is referring particularly to the actual revolutionary aspect of Cuba and not the dictatorship.

[Tower of Bebel]

I Guess Chavez will not succeed.

A union of socialist parties can strenthen the worker&#39;s movements, nowadys the workers are devided by three or four parties. But it must be on condition that the party will be democratic.
Even tough there are advantages, Chavez will fail because some parties will refuse.

[bolshevik butcher]

The major boliviaran workers parties will join. While some small sects may remain on the side they are an irrelevancy to the workers movement in Venezuela, so ovr all i expect that this will be a success.

[Louis Pio]

The thing is that this is seen as a great step forward by the mass of the rank and file of the bolivarian movement. First of because they see it as a way to get rid of the beurucrats, alot of the bolivarian parties are quite undemocratic in structure at present. The unified party is contrary to those being build from the bottom so of course it&#39;s a step forward. That a few sects choose to stand and sulk from the sidelines go quite unnoticed, since people have more pressing matters than to deal with them. Actually to do that is the hight of secterianism, since if you view your self as a revolutionary socialist it seems quite insane to leave the masses to the beurucrats you claim to fight.

[Spirit of Spartacus]

This simply serves to centralise power in the hands of one person which history has proven more times than not to be a bad course of action.

I suppose we shall see.


*sigh*

That&#39;s a completely bourgeois approach to social science. The Marxian analysis is based on social classes, not individuals.

No single individual can control a state. It&#39;s always a dictatorship of a certain CLASS.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 08:57 am
First of because they see it as a way to get rid of the beurucrats, alot of the bolivarian parties are quite undemocratic in structure at present. The unified party is contrary to those being build from the bottom so of course it&#39;s a step forward.
How does this follow? If you unite a bunch of undemocratic parties, how is this going to make them more democratic? You just assume it without giving any reason.

The bureaucrats currently controlling these parties - as you admit - are not going to agree to unification unless they get to keep their posts and perks. And if there isn&#39;t competition among different "Bolivarian" parties for workers&#39; support, they will have even less incentive then before to pay attention to what the ranks think&#33;

So the likely effect would be the opposite of what you assume.

But if these are bureaucratically controlled bourgeois parties, they can unify or not for all I care. The point was more about the attempt to homogenize all socialist groups, possibly including some groups which are part of the workers&#39; movement, into a bourgeois-controlled Chavista party.