Why is this Trot group so critical of Hugo Chavez?

[Cheung Mo]

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/feb2007/chav-f12.shtml

Traditionally, Trotskyists are among Chavez's strongest supporters among the international left and yet WSWS has always been extremely critical of his policies.

[combat]

They have the correct Trotskyst position on this matter. Chavez is a bourgeois nationalist leader that must be overthrown by the working class. Whoever says the contrary cannot be a geniune Trotskyst-communist.

[UndergroundConnexion]

ahahahah good one. Were you sarcastic or serious?

[combat]

I am very serious. Although I am highly critical of the Healyist past of the WSWS, I must admit that most of their current points are valid.

[Whitten]

Chavez is not a Bourgeois-nationalist as his policies with regards to price controls against the Venezuelan big-peasentry, and supporting the formation of worker's cooperatives and industrial action against the Venezuelan National Bourgeois clearly demonstrates.

[combat]

So what is he then? A proletarian revolutionary?

[The Grey Blur]

A figurehead of the proleterian revolution.

[combat]

Then you didn't understand anything about the concept of permanent revolution. ;)

[Coggeh]

Well, alot of trots are split on the issue .Some see him as a revolutionary leader pushing for socialism , others see him as a a sell out of some kind , personnally i have my doubts about him , the people in venezuala are pushing him further left and if it wasn't for the mass socialist movements Chavez would have not done half as much as he planned.I don't see Chavez as a socialist by choice , it was circumstances like the CIA coup and the people that pushed him to his socialist ideals which can be seen through his actions like the nationalisation of oil etc. Seems like a popularist to me , but when the majority of the people are working class/landless peasants being a popularist means hes always going to be along the lines of a socialist .

Quoting Trotsky at numerous of his speeches make me think he's finally going to push for more of a radicalization but actions speak louder than words,But the socialism put forward by Chávez has not necessarily clashed with the interests of Venezuelan capitalism up until now. In the same speech in which he said he was a Trotskyist, he repeated his call to the Venezuelan businessman to join the revolutionary process in the name of “love for Venezuela”. And it is clear that huge profits by the rich elite have been made in Venezuela under Chávez. A recent article in the US newspaper, the Wall Street Journal, had the following title: “A peculiar product of Chávez, the Bolivarian bourgeoisie”. There is a clear attempt, despite recent announcements by Chávez, to stay within the boundaries of capitalism and to try to come to a compromise between the demands of the masses and the capitalist class.

[FatJack4391]

I think that Chavez can go either way with things. On one hand he seems in the right position and right stance to lead a fullout socialist revolution and empower the workers. On the other hand he seems like he is just bullshittign to get into power and help his own interests. I think so far he's done pretty good, but I'd like it a hell of a lot better of there were some armed militias ready to take him out if he did a Stalin flip.

[syndicat]

James Petras views Chavez as a pragamatic left-social-democrat, which seesm right to me. However, the cooperatives, the new radical unions, the community assemblies seem to provide venues where collective action and intervention can move things further than what Chavez has thus proposed. Chavez's "co-management" in big industry, keeping basic control by the state, will tend to empower the cadres of professionals and managers in the state -- the coordinator class, as i call it. but the situation may be quite fluid in terms of what is possible.

[Whitten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 03:59 pm
So what is he then? A proletarian revolutionary?
He's a politician. A reformist socialist, who was put in power following a revolution, and who so far has been acting acting as the head of a democratic national government which is acting on the behalf of the proto-revolutionary workers organisations which are forming there. He's an evolutionary socialist, but its not his revolution, no more than 1917 was Lenin's revolution.


Then you didn't understand anything about the concept of permanent revolution. wink.gif

Care to actually explain why someone who doesn't view Trotsky as a Bourgeois nationalist cant be a trot? I gave examples where he took actions against the national-bourgeois in support of the proletarian organisations, actions that distinguish him from simply being an anti-imperialist bourgeois-nationalist. I think its time you gave an explaination youself as opposed to making unjustified claims.

[Vargha Poralli]

Well only time will tell who is correct in this issue WSWS or others.

Chavez may or may not be a Bourgeoisie Nationalist but certainly I don't give a fuck about it. It is the actions of the Venezuelan Workers and peasants that matter. If they don't want him they will damn sure get rid of him.

As communists we must look at what Venezuelan workers are doing not what Chavez is doing. If the workers support Chavez then I too support him.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by Cheung [email protected] 06, 2007 02:39 pm
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/feb2007/chav-f12.shtml

Traditionally, Trotskyists are among Chavez's strongest supporters among the international left and yet WSWS has always been extremely critical of his policies.
That is typical Trotskyist sectarianism (and I've read that site and its lengthy exposition on Stalinism in the Soviet Union). :(

[I then became a theoretical Stalinist as well as a "Stalin kiddie" before becoming a genuine "Leninist" Marxist. :) ]

My opinion is actually in line with WSWS on this one issue. Chavez is NO socialist, in spite of his sound-bite announcement to nationalize banks and Sidor (a privatized steel monopoly).

[Otherwise, he would've radically altered the constitution to eliminate the bourgeois institution of the presidency altogether.]

However, ordinary Venezuelan workers ARE pushing him further than where he wants to go, so he's going with the flow.

[Whitten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 05:46 pm
Otherwise, he would've radically altered the constitution to eliminate the bourgeois institution of the presidency altogether.
Why is the Presidency a Bourgeois institution? Even the Paris Commune had a President.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ And how much "constitutional" power did the Paris Commune's president have? The constitutional powers of the Venezuelan presidency scare me to death!

[BTW, Mikhail Kalinin was also the Soviet "president" after Sverdlov. However, he functioned under a limited and collective presidency.]

[Whitten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 06:05 pm
^^^ And how much "constitutional" power did the Paris Commune's president have? The constitutional powers of the Venezuelan presidency scare me to death!

[BTW, Mikhail Kalinin was also the Soviet "president" after Sverdlov. However, he functioned under a limited and collective presidency.]
The venezuelan Presiden is subject to the oversight of the National Assembely, and is bound by the constitution with the Supreme Court hjaving the power to declare any of his decisions illegal and null. He even implemented the Court of Auditors with the sole purpose of keeping government officials in-line.

But none of this matters. It doesn't matter if the Venezuelan Presidency has too much power or not. The question is why would that make it a Bourgeois institution?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Read up on Lenin's works and speeches, and find out why he chose "all power to the soviets" and become the equivalent of a prime minister instead of a president.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I think most of the more "serious" Trotskyists have a similar view of Hugo Chavez, from the SEP, to the Sparts and others.

[combat]

The SEP is the American group of the WSWS.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

More precisely, the WSWS is the publication of the ICFI, of which the SEP is the U.S. section.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 06, 2007 06:38 pm
I think most of the more "serious" Trotskyists have a similar view of Hugo Chavez, from the SEP, to the Sparts and others.
If SEP and pseudo-"Sparts" are the "serious" Trotskyists, I am not sure I want to know who are the "funny" ones.

Luís Henrique

[Whitten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 06:29 pm
^^^ Read up on Lenin's works and speeches, and find out why he chose "all power to the soviets" and become the equivalent of a prime minister instead of a president.
First of all, since when was lenin a "prime-minister"?

Secondly, Chavez is not a Leninist, he cant give "all power to the soviets" as the workers councils in Venezuela are far less organised and integrated than the system of Soviets that already existed in the USSR. Lenin made use of them because they existed, Chavez must make use of what exists in Venezuela. None of this changes the fact that while not necessarily the most ideal form of government, the Presidency is not an inherently Bourgeois institution, no more than it is inherently an institution of any other class.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The position of president in a bourgeois state apparatus is not "an inherently bourgeois institution"??

How could it be anything but?



Chavez must make use of what exists in Venezuela

"..the working class cannot simply lay hold of ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.”

[Whitten]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 06, 2007 08:43 pm
The position of president in a bourgeois state apparatus is not "an inherently bourgeois institution"??

How could it be anything but?
The state apperatus is inherently Bourgeois, not all of its offices. Being a directly elected position the presidency is inherently one of the class with the most political power power of the time. Being installed as president as part of a workers uprising really seals the deal.



Chavez must make use of what exists in Venezuela

"..the working class cannot simply lay hold of ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.”

I was refering to the developing workers councils and the absense of soviets to the degree of organisation pressent in 1917 russia, not the state apparatus. That will ideally be removed, but it is not a job for Chavez to do, that is a job for the worker councis, as it is they who must fill the gap, not anything Chavez constructs.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

i wouldn't take the WSWS very seriously, after all their chairman also happens to be a CEO of some corporation. While Chavez isn't a communist, he is a genuine anti-imperialist so should be highly supported in that respect

[metalero]

Sectarians always try to focus and give excessive importance to the same people they so reluctantly criticize; instead of analyzing the mass workers actions that have taken place in Venezuela in recent years, they choose to pick on Chavez overloaded rhetoric. They pick on Simon Bolivar national liberation struggle 2 centuries ago to justify the attack on such a superficial thing as the name of a revolutionary process. They equate 2007 Hugo Chavez with Omar Torrijos and Perón. They even think that the changes Venezuela is going through are the same as Evo's Bolivia or Correa's Ecuador. Chavez is not a revolutionary marxist, but is a bit unfair to dismiss him as a "bonapartist".

[Intelligitimate]

It's fascinating how often Trots line up with the bourgeoisie. Cliffites and Korea, Shachtmanites and Vietnam, nearly all of them against the USSR, China, Cuba, NK, etc. It never ceases to amaze me just how reactionary Trotskyism is, employing the same tired-ass bullshit 'analysis' to everything, including each other, in order to denounce anything different than their little irrelevant cults.

[Coggeh]

(Intelligitimate)
It's fascinating how often Trots line up with the bourgeoisie. Cliffites and Korea, Shachtmanites and Vietnam, nearly all of them against the USSR, China, Cuba, NK, etc. It never ceases to amaze me just how reactionary Trotskyism is, employing the same tired-ass bullshit 'analysis' to everything, including each other, in order to denounce anything different than their little irrelevant cults.

Well would you go so far as to call USSR China and North Korea socialist ?

How are we against Cuba ? of course to argue their should be more power to local councils but Cuba (how ever deformed it may be ) is the best example of a lasting transitional state .

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ So true... Rosa Lichtenstein said that the Trotskyist sectarianism is the ultimate epitome of dialectical non-sense at work (with Maoist opportunism and Stalinist reformism not far behind).

Oh, and certain AMERICAN Trotskyists are the ideological forerunners of today's NEOCONSERVATIVE-fascist wreckers.



[Mind you, this coming from someone rejecting the fantastical notion of "permanent revolution," the isolationist notion of "socialism in one country" / national socialism, and Stalinism's "two-stageist" foreign policy.]

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The state apperatus is inherently Bourgeois, not all of its offices. Being a directly elected position the presidency is inherently one of the class with the most political power power of the time. Being installed as president as part of a workers uprising really seals the deal.

Let me get this straight.. being elected the head of a bourgeois state doesn'tnecessarily mean you're the head of a bourgeois state? :wacko:

Even if this were true, what makes you think the working class has "the most political power" in Venezuela right now.. the record profits the oil barrons have pulled in under Chavez?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

It's fascinating how often Trots line up with the bourgeoisie. Cliffites and Korea, Shachtmanites and Vietnam, nearly all of them against the USSR, China, Cuba, NK, etc.

While that's definitely true, it can't be said that that comes from 'the old man' himself.. it's more of a Cliffite/Shachtmanite phenomenon. It's telling that these same forces often line up with the forces of reaction in the name of "anti-imperialism (i.e. with Islamic religious fanatics).

It also must be pointed out that alot of "Maoists" and "anti-revisionists" have done as much (or more) scabbing on workers states than the best of the "new class" folks mentioned above.


How are we against Cuba ?

The Cliffite/Shachtmanites are - not all Trotskyists.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 12:54 am
It's fascinating how often Trots line up with the bourgeoisie. Cliffites and Korea, Shachtmanites and Vietnam, nearly all of them against the USSR, China, Cuba, NK, etc. It never ceases to amaze me just how reactionary Trotskyism is, employing the same tired-ass bullshit 'analysis' to everything, including each other, in order to denounce anything different than their little irrelevant cults.
I'm pretty sure that the SWP fully supports the Cuban revolution (as well as being cautiously in support of Chavez' actions in Venezuela). Again, I'm quite sure of that.

Back to the main point, I think that Chavez and the Venezuelan workers are gradually pushing the revolution further and further. Chavez' recent actions in forming worker councils, supporting workers in class struggle and more show that he is going in a revolutionary direction IMO. Again, just like all revolutions, the workers are the gas powering the pistons; I hope that Chavez can provide a suitable engine (and it looks as though he may).

[Whitten]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 07, 2007 01:54 am

The state apperatus is inherently Bourgeois, not all of its offices. Being a directly elected position the presidency is inherently one of the class with the most political power power of the time. Being installed as president as part of a workers uprising really seals the deal.

Let me get this straight.. being elected the head of a bourgeois state doesn'tnecessarily mean you're the head of a bourgeois state? :wacko:

Even if this were true, what makes you think the working class has "the most political power" in Venezuela right now.. the record profits the oil barrons have pulled in under Chavez?
The working class overthrough the capitalist government in a revolution and choose who to put in the presidency (Chavez). Hence Chavez is a tool of the proletariat, not the bourgeois.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Wow, really? So Venezuela is now socialist then?

[syndicat]

There's not yet been any workers revolution in Venezuela. There'd
have to be mass worker organizations seizing control of means of
production and attacking the old state apparatus. but Chavez
was elected to office thru the existing state when he first came
into office. poor people have voted him into office, that's true, but
this has often been true of reformers in capitalist countries.

[Cheung Mo]

Is revolutionary fervour among the proletarian and landless peasants such that they would have the means of disposing of Chavez should he ultimately prove to be useless or reactionary?

[Comrade_Scott]

you know it amazes me how you guys act towards chavez, the man comes to power, and reformes things for the people. Now sure things are still bad in venezuela but they were 10 times worse before he came to office and we cant expect everything to change overnight can we, and who are we to criticize him? what have we done latley? have we nationalized any oil pumps or started cheap to free education? i doubt it, he is doing something he aint perfect no one is but he is changing things for the better down there.

[Tower of Bebel]

Can someone explain me why there is so much hatred towards Chavez? Okay, he is no revolutionary and it seems he wont turn communist in the way we see it. But isn't it the mistake of (for communists:) the local communist parties that there is no real progress towards communism? Or for anarchists: isn't it the time for the people to lead the country by theirselves?
Chavez did good by defeating US imperialism, but as he doesn't make real progress the bourgeoisie will take his place once after his death and the country will go back to the back yard of the US. It's time to make the people to decide, not Chavez.

[A.J.]

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/feb2007/chav-f12.shtml

Traditionally, Trotskyists are among Chavez's strongest supporters among the international left and yet WSWS has always been extremely critical of his policies.

For trotskyites to support Chavez, they would have to consider the Venezuala as being a proletarian state(which it patently isn't), as is my understanding of Trotsky's theory(read ultra-leftist deviation) of permanent revolution.

Marxist-Leninists offer Chavez temporary tactical support as an anti-imperialist, given the current external and internal balance of forces. Marxist-leninists, however, aren't deluded enough to consider Chavez some kind of revolutionary socialist(regardless of his bluster and bombast).

The Bolivarian revolution is a national-democratic revolution.

[Leo]

Can someone explain me why there is so much hatred towards Chavez?

Uh, could it be because he is a bourgeois nationalist who is the president of a bourgeois state?

[Tower of Bebel]

Uh, could it be because he is a bourgeois nationalist who is the president of a bourgeois state?

Thanks for the answer. But my opinion on Chavez has changed by some degree over the past months (since my last post in this thread dates from may 2007). I even believed back then that Chavez had defeated US imperialism :D.
Indeed, Chavez is not as revolutionary has he sounds, and he is currently not attacking the remains of international capitalism within his own country, which makes it obvious to criticize his every move.

[Holden Caulfield]

Secondly, Chavez is not a Leninist, he cant give "all power to the soviets"

if he was elected over and over again and the soviets are too weak to be a governing body surely this would be the stamp of their approval,

he isn't fully socialist but i think if he was they would soon find themselves invaded via miami, he is taking the right steps at the right time to ensure the socialist 'state' endures,

he has my support and i consider my self fairly far-left, i loved it when he said he wanted to build housing projects over golf courses that annoyed alot of rich fucks and should be done for the sheer symbolism of it

[More Fire for the People]

A figurehead of the proleterian revolution.
Revolution's do not have figureheads: they have masses, organic intellectuals, military and community leaders, and class-traitors but they do not have 'figureheads'. The use of 'figurehead' rhetoric belongs to what Broth'a Richter would call 'Ideologists'.

[kromando33]

Trotskyists always criticize yet they never make revolution and never help the proletariat, they sit in their tiny factions and pettily criticize every legitimate attempt to build socialism as 'authoritarian' or whatever, but ultimately they do nothing.

How Trots get off their high horses and try and agitate for revolution, and get over their petty obcession with electoral bourgeois parliamentarianism.

Also, just to confirm I don't support Chavez either, but Trots are even more bourgeois.

[piet11111]

chavez to me looks like someone who stepped on the wrong bus surrounded by intimidating poeple (the proles) and is desperatly trying to act like one so that he doesnt get his ass kicked.

i am waiting untill he finally finds himself a place to get off the damn bus


i dont think chavez is going much further then what he has done so far and he really needs to be kicked off the bus before he pulls the emergency brakes.

[La Comédie Noire]

Heres a good article, compliments of Cheymarijuanna on the situation in Venezuela as it stands now. Chavez is calling for the workers to "slow down". Some say this is the influence of the bureaucrats, you guys be the judge.

http://www.marxist.com/venezuelan-revolution-at-crossroads.htm




The venezuelan Presiden is subject to the oversight of the National Assembely, and is bound by the constitution with the Supreme Court hjaving the power to declare any of his decisions illegal and null. He even implemented the Court of Auditors with the sole purpose of keeping government officials in-line.

Don't believe everything you read.


i wouldn't take the WSWS very seriously, after all their chairman also happens to be a CEO of some corporation. While Chavez isn't a communist, he is a genuine anti-imperialist so should be highly supported in that respect.

True, however he does give oil to the United States, but we can't ask for perfection.


but is a bit unfair to dismiss him as a "bonapartist".

What would you call him then?


you know it amazes me how you guys act towards chavez, the man comes to power, and reformes things for the people. Now sure things are still bad in venezuela but they were 10 times worse before he came to office and we cant expect everything to change overnight can we, and who are we to criticize him? what have we done latley? have we nationalized any oil pumps or started cheap to free education? i doubt it, he is doing something he aint perfect no one is but he is changing things for the better down there

Ain't nothing wrong with reform. Which, make no mistake, is what it is.


i dont think chavez is going much further then what he has done so far and he really needs to be kicked off the bus before he pulls the emergency brakes.

For more on that, see the article above.

[KC]

While Chavez isn't a communist, he is a genuine anti-imperialist so should be highly supported in that respect

One cannot be anti-imperialist without being communist, as imperialism is capitalism.


Even if this were true, what makes you think the working class has "the most political power" in Venezuela right now.. the record profits the oil barrons have pulled in under Chavez?

Hasn't unemployment stayed the same under Chavez as well, as well as the amount of people living under the poverty line? I'm not sure if it's true, but I've heard that.

Anyways, it seems to me that Chavez is able to remain at the top of this "revolutionary wave" because of the record profits that PDVSA is pulling in and their ability to "give" this money to the people.


The working class overthrough the capitalist government in a revolution and choose who to put in the presidency (Chavez). Hence Chavez is a tool of the proletariat, not the bourgeois.

The working class never overthrew the bourgeoisie in Venezuela, nor did they abolish the bourgeois state apparatus and implement a proletarian one in its place.


Is revolutionary fervour among the proletarian and landless peasants such that they would have the means of disposing of Chavez should he ultimately prove to be useless or reactionary?

The proletariat and its allies always has that power.


you know it amazes me how you guys act towards chavez, the man comes to power, and reformes things for the people. Now sure things are still bad in venezuela but they were 10 times worse before he came to office and we cant expect everything to change overnight can we, and who are we to criticize him? what have we done latley? have we nationalized any oil pumps or started cheap to free education? i doubt it, he is doing something he aint perfect no one is but he is changing things for the better down there.

There is a difference between "making things better" by throwing money at a problem and making things better by changing the system that causes the problems themselves (overthrowing capitalism).


Chavez did good by defeating US imperialism

Chavez didn't defeat US imperialism. First, it is impossible to do such a thing without overthrowing capitalism. Second, even if he had an effect on US influence in the country, that doesn't really mean much if there is a local bourgeoisie or another imperialist power to take its place. In other words, one can't defeat imperialism without defeating capitalism.


he has my support

He has my support as well, but also my criticism. I support the moves against imperialism/capitalism that he has made, but criticize him for not taking it far enough, and for even using this as a ploy to garner support and maintain his position. Eventually, of course, the Venezuelan people will decide how this should go.

[RaiseYourVoice]

Critcal of Chavez? Well everyone should always be critical of "leaders" of a revolution, since its not unusuall that they sell it out. Those though, who happen to "prove" their point about Venenzuela by saying Chavez is "insert random unrevolutionary position in here" like the sparts here in germany do, they should maybe get off their armchair and either join one of the meeting with representatives from the Movement in Venezuela or if they have the money go there and check for yourself. I dont have the money, but i had many talks with Venezuelans, first of all things have improved... the whole neighbourhood help, alphabetisation, the water/eletricity supply in the barrios, University education for those who arent part of the ruling class. Most People dont have any idea yet where this process is going, they dont have a clear view on class relations, they still listen too often to the class enemy. BUT people feel that its going the right way and hopefully education programms give the chance for Class concsiousness (i hate that word in english) to spread. People are also critical of Chavez, qoute about Chavez calling Bush the Devil "He just like to hear himself talk *smile*" and I hope if Chavez was ever to try to betray the revolutionary process it would fail. (Unlike in my country were social democrats effectively betrayed the revolution)

So... the revolutionary process in venezuella is neither easy nor perfect, what suprise. As leftists we ALWAYS take a critical stance because once criticism dies, progress dies along. At the same time we must be wary of sitting in front of our book collection and checking if a movement fullfills our requirements.

[Holden Caulfield]

they sit in their tiny factions and pettily criticize every legitimate attempt to build socialism ...
Also, just to confirm I don't support Chavez either, but Trots are even more bourgeois.

you aren't supporting then are you, and i believe you dont support him coz you have criticisms of him,

think you contradicted yourself a bit there

[kromando33]

If he expropriates the bourgeois I may come round to him, but at the moment is is allowing the 'Miami class' to remain in their massive mansions and contaminate the nation with US-funded reactionary media campaigns, he does not move against them and send the military to seize their property and imprison bourgeois political agitators. The US-supported coup which briefly ousted him should prove to him that the bourgeois want a more aggressively neoliberal government, and don't want to have to pay for welfare for the poor.

But at the moment it seems Chavez is simply using an oil-funded welfare capitalist economic policy to keep his lower-class support base loyal.

[BobKKKindle$]

This article provides a good analysis of Venezuela: http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=13919

Clearly we cannot describe Chavez as a revolutionary, as he came to power through the use of the electoral system, and the bourgeois state apparatus has remained in place, and since the referendum defeat, Chavez has began to take a more conciliatory position towards the political right, which represents the interests of the bourgeoisie and is closely linked to the United States, as evidenced by the appointment of Ramon Carrizales as vice-president, a military officer with links to big business. The recent creation of the PSUV also suggests that Chavez is trying to subject popular political energy to the control of the state, in order to ensure that radicalism does not take the form of insurrection. As for the actual result of the referendum (which serves as a good indicator of how workers feel about the government) the article above notes that

"Stephanie Blankenburg, an adviser to the Venezuelan government, writes in the New Statesman, “The result of 2 December was essentially a protest vote by the ‘Chavista street’ against the ‘Chavista elite’.” Discontent at food shortages, inflation, and corruption led a large section of Chavez’s base to stay away from the polls."

[oujiQualm]

James Petras views Chavez as a pragamatic left-social-democrat, which seesm right to me. However, the cooperatives, the new radical unions, the community assemblies seem to provide venues where collective action and intervention can move things further than what Chavez has thus proposed. Chavez's "co-management" in big industry, keeping basic control by the state, will tend to empower the cadres of professionals and managers in the state -- the coordinator class, as i call it. but the situation may be quite fluid in terms of what is possible.

-----------
Agreed.

[kromando33]

I would actually put Chavez beyond a social-democrat, although he is reformist in his approach most social-democratic parties worldwide are innately anti-communist, which is not something that much associated with Chavez.

[Herman]

I believe the IMT has the best analysis of Chavez.

He is not a proletarian revolutionary, but he is a "radical" reformist. It isn't wrong to criticize some of the things he does, but generally I think most of his actions have been positive.

Take for example the fact that people in Venezuela can form their own independant radio/tv station. All you have to do is ask the state for money and resources... and you get them. No catch there, no drawback, no secret clause or anything.

[Zurdito]

Absolutely correct position from the WSWW. Chavez is a bourgeois nationalist who is attempting to neutralise the Venezuelan working class revolution and dismantle independent working class organisation. This strategy has been used countless times in the past, such as by Peron in Argentina, who nobody would call a communist yet who actually was more generous with his welfare, more redistributionist in his economic policy, and more radical with his nationalisations than Chavez is.

A very promising vanguard group in Venezuela today is the C-Cura faction of the national union UNT, led by Orlando Chirino, who rightly campaigned against Chavez's authoritarian constitutional reforms. This group is fighting for independent working class organisation and to keep the momentum of the Venezuelan revolution going onwards towards an overthrow of the current bourgeois state.

[kromando33]

Absolutely correct position from the WSWW. Chavez is a bourgeois nationalist who is attempting to neutralise the Venezuelan working class revolution and dismantle independent working class organisation. This strategy has been used countless times in the past, such as by Peron in Argentina, who nobody would call a communist yet who actually was more generous with his welfare, more redistributionist in his economic policy, and more radical with his nationalisations than Chavez is.

A very promising vanguard group in Venezuela today is the C-Cura faction of the national union UNT, led by Orlando Chirino, who rightly campaigned against Chavez's authoritarian constitutional reforms. This group is fighting for independent working class organisation and to keep the momentum of the Venezuelan revolution going onwards towards an overthrow of the current bourgeois state.
Oh great, 'authoritarian', you anarchos would oppose a fridge if it looked overbearing to you, I spose after the 'anarchist' revolution the bourgeois will just come quietly and dance with the revolutionaries with flowers in their hair:rolleyes:. Any class warfare Chavez does is fine imho.

[The Feral Underclass]

Oh great, 'authoritarian', you anarchos would oppose a fridge if it looked overbearing to you

If a fridge had taken control of centralised political authority and was using it to control a revolution then I suspect we would.


I spose after the 'anarchist' revolution the bourgeois will just come quietly and dance with the revolutionaries with flowers in their hair:rolleyes:.

I see you're another one of those people who have come here believing them selves to have some kind of knowledge about anarchism yet don't.

I don't know any anarchist who wants a revolution to involve the bourgeoisie come dancing quietly with flowers in their hair.

You bizarre person.


Any class warfare Chavez does is fine imho.

What quantifies as class warfare though?

[kromando33]

No my problem with anarchism is that it assumes everyone is perfect and thus is impractical and anti-Marxist, and that without the security apparatus of the state that a proletarian revolution could survive the inevitably bourgeois counter-attack.

[Zurdito]

Oh great, 'authoritarian', you anarchos would oppose a fridge if it looked overbearing to you, I spose after the 'anarchist' revolution the bourgeois will just come quietly and dance with the revolutionaries with flowers in their hair:rolleyes:. Any class warfare Chavez does is fine imho.

I'm not an anarchist, I'm a trotskyist. If I was an anarchist why would I be endorsing C-Cura, which is fighting to form a working class Bolshevik-style party to replace Chavez's hollow populism? It shws your knowledge of Venezuela that you htink Orlando Chirino is an anarchist.

Any class warfare Chavez does is not fine imho, because it is quite often waged against the working class.


In the words of Trotsky, speaking out against the Stalinist policies which led to the defeat of the working class in the west in the 1930's:

“…we must vote against all measures that strengthen the capitalist-bonapartist state, even those measures which may for the moment cause temporary unpleasantness for the fascists.”

Also, i'ts funny that you accuse me of thinkign the bourgeoisie will come skipping to socialism with flowers in their hair. Yet this is precisely what you appear to believe is happening in Venezuela right now.

[kromando33]

Well I can't agree with you on taking Trotsky as an authoritative source for proving a point, I simply cannot reconcile his anti-Marxist, pro-imperialist Hegelianism with my own views of Marxism.

[Zurdito]

Well I can't agree with you on taking Trotsky as an authoritative source for proving a point, I simply cannot reconcile his anti-Marxist, pro-imperialist Hegelianism with my own views of Marxism.

So you would in some instances support the strengthening of the capitalist state?

Yet Marx taught us that the state is the tool of the dominant class in society.

So who is the anti-marxist?

[The Feral Underclass]

No my problem with anarchism is that it assumes everyone is perfect

No it doesn't.


that without the security apparatus of the state that a proletarian revolution could survive the inevitably bourgeois counter-attack.

That claim has been falsified.

[kromando33]

So you would in some instances support the strengthening of the capitalist state?

Yet Marx taught us that the state is the tool of the dominant class in society.

So who is the anti-marxist?
I support the strengthening of the proletarian dictatorship, full stop, and the use of every modern tool of the state security apparatus to maintain the worker's dictatorship against the bourgeois.

Also Tension, do you mind elaborating on your one liners?

[The Feral Underclass]

Also Tension, do you mind elaborating on your one liners?

Well, anarchism does not believe that everyone is perfect and the claim that we need to have a state in order to defend a revolution has been falsified.

That's about the sum of it...

[kromando33]

Well, anarchism does not believe that everyone is perfect and the claim that we need to have a state in order to defend a revolution has been falsified.

That's about the sum of it...
That's not an elaboration, how exactly has it been 'falsified'? Marx said that no class has even given up power with violence, and his analysis of class makes it pretty clear that the diametrically opposed interests of the bourgeois and proletarians makes class war inevitable, people die in war.

Do anarchists think a transition period of class struggle is needed to weed out these reactionary elements in society, so that social relations can indeed be communized?

[Zurdito]

I support the strengthening of the proletarian dictatorship


Is that what Venezuela has?

[The Feral Underclass]

]how exactly has it been 'falsified'?

There are historical examples of worker and peasent gains being defended against counter-revolutionary forces without a centralised political authority and being successful.


Marx said that no class has even given up power with violence, and his analysis of class makes it pretty clear that the diametrically opposed interests of the bourgeois and proletarians makes class war inevitable, people die in war.

I'm denying that there will be conflict. Of course there will be violence and of course the bourgeoisie will attempt to usurp our gains.


Do anarchists think a transition period of class struggle is needed to weed out these reactionary elements in society, so that social relations can indeed be communized?

Yes.

[coda]

Hey, Kromando, didn't we just have this discussion the other night??? :p

Here is the question i would pose to you---

So, you non-anarchist revolutionaries have gotten rid of the ruling class--- their military people and their police etc. And you replace them with revolutionaries of your own choosing---people who can immediately defend counter attack etc.

Question: Why can't anarchists do the same?

The difference is that anarchists would volunteer to act on the frontlines of defense during class war, they would not retain the position of a standing army or police force after the threat has been crushed as the communes themselves & the proletarians would be armed and trained against further counter-insurgency attacks.

<<<If a fridge had taken control of centralised political authority and was using it to control a revolution then I suspect we would>>>

Whooh! damn straight

[Herman]

I'm not an anarchist, I'm a trotskyist. If I was an anarchist why would I be endorsing C-Cura, which is fighting to form a working class Bolshevik-style party to replace Chavez's hollow populism? It shws your knowledge of Venezuela that you htink Orlando Chirino is an anarchist.

Orlando Chirino is a good man and has plenty of good ideas. Too bad the UNT is mutilated into many tendencies, which render it ineffective still.

Funny though that you would call Chavez a "populist". Do you even know what that means? It's the kind of insult the bourgeoisie and their media use from their individualistic point of view. Calling a socialist leader "populist" is very un-marxist and non-materialistic.


Any class warfare Chavez does is not fine imho, because it is quite often waged against the working class.

Chavez is not the one who's saying no to the working class or the rise of cooperatives and worker's management. It's the bureaucrats, the men and women who helped Chavez during his first years and feel very comfortable in their current position.


Also, i'ts funny that you accuse me of thinkign the bourgeoisie will come skipping to socialism with flowers in their hair. Yet this is precisely what you appear to believe is happening in Venezuela right now.

Peaceful revolution is always preferable to violent revolution. Marx and Engels said as much.

[Zurdito]

Funny though that you would call Chavez a "populist". Do you even know what that means? It's the kind of insult the bourgeoisie and their media use from their individualistic point of view. Calling a socialist leader "populist" is very un-marxist and non-materialistic.

I know what "populist" means, yes, and I don't consider it an unmarxist or unmaterialist word to use. It would be wrong to use it about a socialist leader, but Chavez is not that.

Sections of the bourgeoisie will always reach out to mass support, moreso when there is a real threat to the system. Chavez represents this. I don't think we can call him social democratic, because he does not come from any working class organisation as for exaple the British Labour Party is.

Socialism is the expression of the organised working class. Social democrat reformist traitors are the leaders who come through those organisations and then betray their class. Chavez represents neither. He is from the military and appeals directly to the masses, without any real institutionalisation of the working class as an independently organised force. He is bourgeois by any measure. Therefore, populist is not such an unfair fair description, regardless of whether the bourgeois press use it. Should we resort to putting a plus wherever they put a minus?

However in the case of Chavez perhaps left-bonapartist is more adequate, as he has arisen out of a revolutionary situation. Populism may apply more to a Peron or a Vargas.



Peaceful revolution is always preferable to violent revolution. Marx and Engels said as much.


I agree. However, a sccesful revolution is preferable to a failed one. Ask 9000 dead Chilean leftists.

[kromando33]

Is that what Venezuela has?
No, it doesn't, I have said this, it has a President who inhabits the bourgeois political structures left before him, and although he has some pro-worker policy, his tendencies toward oil-welfare capitalism is a bit much for me.

[Zurdito]

No, it doesn't, I have said this.

in which case, you should be agreeing with me!