Venezuelan communal councils gaining power

[ComradeR]

Venezuelan communities take centre stage
In classrooms, town halls and squares across Venezuela, people are coming together to talk about their communities.

These are the 26,000 communal councils that are becoming the new power base in Venezuela as President Hugo Chavez continues turning his country into a socialist republic.

If changes being proposed to the country's constitution are accepted, then it will be these councils that have more say in what happens in their local communities.

With promises of less bureaucracy in the way, ordinary citizens will, in theory, be able to apply directly to the president's commissions for funds and manage those funds themselves.

The scope of President Chavez's power worries some sectors in Venezuela, and there are plenty of people who oppose reforms which they say are forcing everyone into one way of doing things.

Nevertheless, one recent poll suggested Mr Chavez could count on 70% support if and when his proposed reforms are put to the vote.

Participation

One of Caracas's poorest neighbourhoods, named after the day democracy was restored when a dictatorial president fled the country, is 23 January. Here dilapidated tower blocks stand out starkly against the city's skyline.

Surrounding them are ramshackle, red-brick homes, often built precariously into the hills, almost balancing on top of each other.

The area is beset with crime and social problems, but there is a strong sense of community and a desire from many to improve their lives.

On a rainy afternoon, people from around a dozen or so community councils have come together to talk about their problems and discuss what they want the role of the councils to be in the future.

Tibisay Cabaniel is a young woman who speaks on behalf of many of her female neighbours.

"We have problems with homes that are badly built that at risk of collapsing in the rain. There are mothers without work. There are so many problems. But participating can really help solve our problems," she said.

"Now, with the integration of the councils and the executive powers of the president, we can begin to give answers to our communities," another spokesman, Jimny Avila, said.

"Hugo Chavez is getting rid of corruption and bureaucracy."

As they sat in a circle writing ideas on a flip chart, one problem kept arising - participation. How to get more people to take part in these local forums.

Adriana Scovino, from the municipal council, was leading the discussions and helping the groups.

"They need to learn how to organise themselves and also how to motivate their neighbours into participating," she said.

"For many years we've had a culture of non-participation, but this is changing. It's a slow process. It's not easy."


Money

President Chavez wants to double the number of community councils to 50,000 by the end of the year in what he calls an "explosion of communal power".

He says in the future the councils will take on more responsibilities currently held by governing bodies. They could run local utilities and even choose judges. All their decisions would be approved by local citizens assemblies.

There is plenty of money on the table which should help motivate people.

Mr Chavez recently announced another $800m (£400m) to be allocated to 6,000 projects and he is giving each council start-up funds and a new computer that has been made through a Chinese Venezuelan partnership.

But all this is raising concerns among those who dislike the radical nature of the president's politics. Opposition groups say democracy is being politicised, with the local councils used as hubs for political activism.

'Contradiction'

In Caracas's three opposition-run municipalities, there is plenty of work going on with the community, but without the talk of socialism or revolution.

I met Chacao's mayor Leopoldo Lopez in a modern community sports centre. Dozens of children were being taught to swim or dance, all of them on a free, council-run playscheme.

"With the amount of money in Venezuela, every area could have facilities like this," Mr Lopez said.

"If more of the profits from oil were spent here rather than overseas for political reasons, then everyone would be better off."

Mr Lopez agrees that people should have more control of their communities, but he says the president's definition of people power is a contradiction.

"Communal councils have to register themselves with the president's office. But if they're not absolutely loyal to the government, they won't get registered. And if there're not registered, there's no access to government funds.

"You need to promote plurality, tolerance and diversity. Without this, there is no democracy," he continued.

"Political power is being concentrated in the president's hands. Community organisations that don't think like the president cannot succeed."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6946013.stm
Thoughts? comments?

[Tower of Bebel]

This must be a step in the right direction. This also partialy solves the problem of a growing bureaucracy.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Let's just hope that the workers and peasants of Venezuela will themselves make the councils more relevant, and moreover freeing them from the chains of the government. The class struggle shouldn't be directed by the state but people on the ground. If we are lucky we should see the people taking initiative.

If we would be really lucky we would see these councils growing in strength, gradually taking over the functions of the state, creating assemblies for council leaders and serving as a dual power of the state until the people are strong enough to topple the capitalist class. But things rarely develop that smooth.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I thought all the headlines revolved around the proposed abolition of presidential term limits, "dictator" Chavez, et al! :lol:

Seriously, Venezuela would be "democratically" better off by even adopting the Westminster model de facto for whatever is left of its state structure (the legislature and the executive), given that presidential models de jure and de facto (the latter nowadays in regards to the various "Prime Minister's Office(s)" that funnel all the power to the prime minister) are more reactionary.

[Herman]

Fantastic news!

This is the kind of thing I want to see in Spain!

[ComradeR]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 09:47 am
Fantastic news!

This is the kind of thing I want to see in Spain!
It's the kind of thing we want to see everywhere, it's a good step towards the DoP.

Let's just hope that the workers and peasants of Venezuela will themselves make the councils more relevant. The class struggle shouldn't be directed by the state but people on the ground. If we are lucky we should see the people taking initiative.
Exactly, Chavez is helping to lay the groundwork but it's up to the Venezuelan people to make the DoP a reality.

If we are lucky we'll see these councils growing in strength, gradually taking over the functions of the state, creating assemblies for council leaders and serving as a dual power of the state until the people are strong enough to topple the capitalist class. But things rarely develop that smooth.
We can sure hope though.

[Luís Henrique]

In the context of the other thread (the one about the Venezolan students movement), I have asked some questions to people I know that have closer ties to there. One of them is a sibling or a person who happens to chair one of these councils. According to this person, eir sibling was appointed top-down, by the government, but now starts to face internal opposition, from people in the council who question that, and start defending that the chairperson should be elected.

Luís Henrique

[Karl Marx's Camel]

That's good :)

[ComradeR]

In the context of the other thread (the one about the Venezolan students movement), I have asked some questions to people I know that have closer ties to there. One of them is a sibling or a person who happens to chair one of these councils. According to this person, eir sibling was appointed top-down, by the government, but now starts to face internal opposition, from people in the council who question that, and start defending that the chairperson should be elected.

Luís Henrique
That's excellent news, here's hoping the workers continue to push for more control.

[chebol]

A relevant article from Venezuelanalysis.com (which is now back up after having been offline for a bit - it turns out it wasn't hacked, but that the host went bankrupt, and the domain was rapidly exploited), highlighting some of the problems faced in the process as well:

United Socialist Party of Venezuela prepares to elect congress delegates (http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=2386)

[Spirit of Spartacus]

Quoting the BBC article:



But all this is raising concerns among those who dislike the radical nature of the president's politics. Opposition groups say democracy is being politicised, with the local councils used as hubs for political activism.


Very interesting.

I thought democracy was inherently political.

What's next? Will the Opposition blame Chavez for making water wet? Or for making fire hot? :P

[Herman]

What's next? Will the Opposition blame Chavez for making water wet? Or for making fire hot?

They'll blame him for causing the earthquake in Peru, because he built a super-earthquake-making acme machine with government funds.

[SpikeyRed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 07:41 pm


They'll blame him for causing the earthquake in Peru, because he built a super-earthquake-making acme machine with government funds.
South American MAD?

ALL POWER TO THE SOVIETS! :P

[Entrails Konfetti]

How remarkable the Bolvarian Government approves government friendly communal councils to run things under the governments direction!

And I just thought those kerazee nutters waving red and black flags were taking things over!

You see brothers and sisters, these are what workers-councils are all about! They must meet approval of the regime, or they can be made by the regime-- we must never count on workers themselves forming councils on their behalf! It is a concept so new to them.

[Louis Pio]

You see brothers and sisters, these are what workers-councils are all about! They must meet approval of the regime, or they can be made by the regime-- we must never count on workers themselves forming councils on their behalf! It is a concept so new to them.


Generally you lack any form of trust in the revolutionary aspirations of workers and peasants. If these councils are only tools against them they will never hold any credibility surely. And then they wouldn't even have any meaning from the states point of view.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 07:37 pm
Generally you lack any form of trust in the revolutionary aspirations of workers and peasants. If these councils are only tools against them they will never hold any credibility surely. And then they wouldn't even have any meaning from the states point of view.
Huh :huh: ?
Your first sentance accuses me of not believing that workers and peasants can form councils themselves, and from there you obfuscate everything you wrote.

[Louis Pio]

The problem is: these councils are seen by workers and peasants as a great step forward, while you on the other hand see them as just a tool of the bourgiosie and therefore just dismiss them.

Of course it would be so much easier if the class struggle just followed the "textbook", however it is seldom so.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 10:53 pm
The problem is: these councils are seen by workers and peasants as a great step forward, while you on the other hand see them as just a tool of the bourgiosie and therefore just dismiss them.

By some workers, while some don't-- who see them as Chavez training people to make his job easier for him. Don't give me the garbage that all such workers are part of the opposition.


Of course it would be so much easier if the class struggle just followed the "textbook", however it is seldom so.

Theres a textbook forumla on revolutions :o ! How remarkable!

A "revolution" is bound to fail if its not the workers themselves forming the councils, and challenging capitalism to destroy it. Infact capital has barely been flicked at by the Chavistas, instead the plans are to reorganize it through a Pan-South American bank, and nationalizations. Also, in Venezuela taxes on revenue are less than they are in the USA (except for the oil industry)! :wacko:

[Karl Marx's Camel]

I think EL KABLAMO is spot on.

[Herman]

Yes, any attempt to bring participatory democracy by the state is futile, eh?

Please.

Don't be so dogmatic. You may criticize, but you must compromise as well. If it's always going to be 'the workers must do it all themselves, they must spontaneously rise up', then there will never be a revolution.

Any attempt to bring socialism is a good attempt.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 09:42 pm
Yes, any attempt to bring participatory democracy by the state is futile, eh?
Yes, it's futile for the powers above to bring "participatory democracy" (such phrase has different meanings to different people, and variants). Any attempts to make workers by force make descisions, isn't really representative of the workers but of those who are making them make descisions. The workers have to want and desire socialism. Socialism is all about workers consciously being the actors of history, you can't make them conscious-- sure you can spread the theory, but they have to want to know it and practice it.


Don't be so dogmatic. You may criticize, but you must compromise as well. If it's always going to be 'the workers must do it all themselves, they must spontaneously rise up', then there will never be a revolution.

When two parties compromise over an issue, both sides are miserable. For example if I want to eat at an Italian Resturant, however my date wants to eat at an Indian result, we compromise by cooking our own dish thats both Italian and Indian-- the result, we both agree that the food tastes like shit!

And no, it isn't a compromise if we eat Indian one night with promises with that "we will eat Italian in the future"-- what if in the future we don't want to eat Italian, what if we don't go on a date again? So Indian Resturant wins the night.

If you want to bring up the concept " we'll you can compromise on different areas"-- sure on the date we might see the movie I want to see because we had Indian Food, but in a political and economic environment-- a society , such a compromise would be silly, and the machinery of the society couldn't run together. It would be like allowing hunters in a wild-life sanctuary.

Workers don't wake up one day, they realize they need and want Socialism through struggles, through understanding the class-antagonisms, through understanding about the class-antagonisms that nothing will ever change if there is class society, and themselves understanding that they will have to change history because the upper-classes wont do it-- its not the upper-classes interests.

Compromising, on a macro level of society doesn't allow society to function, with compromises no one can be sure of where society will even go, its all in the immediate sense, it's all with good intentions, but theres no certainty.


Any attempt to bring socialism is a good attempt

Three words:
Symbionese Liberation Army.

[Tatarin]

Any attempts to make workers by force make descisions, isn't really representative of the workers but of those who are making them make descisions.

But workers can decide if they want to be a part of those communal councils. Also, Chavez has created the right conditions for people to actually get power, even if his plan is to social-democratize Venezuela. Workers in social democratic governments have a much better chance in revolution than, say, USA, China, Britain...


The workers have to want and desire socialism.

Thus, they elected Chavez? And even saved him from a coup?

[Herman]

Yes, it's futile for the powers above to bring "participatory democracy" (such phrase has different meanings to different people, and variants). Any attempts to make workers by force make descisions, isn't really representative of the workers but of those who are making them make descisions.

You speak as if soldiers were actually there with a gun at their heads!

If they don't want to form councils, they don't have to! Neither do they have to take over factories themselves! Workers have been doing this even before the law itself. The only thing the state has done is legalize it and fund it. How is that wrong? If you think that socialism can only be achieved the same way the anarchists did it in Catalonia, then you're out of your mind. The cultural hegemony just hasn't been dented enough yet. What Chavez is doing is attempting to get people involved in the building of socialism. In order, he too wants it from 'below', but they can't do that unless they themselves are encouraged using full state power.


The workers have to want and desire socialism. Socialism is all about workers consciously being the actors of history, you can't make them conscious-- sure you can spread the theory, but they have to want to know it and practice it.

They ARE knowing it and ARE practicing it! That's what communal councils and cooperatives all over the country are DOING! Especially the cooperatives! Most of these were made by workers themselves and what Chavez did is simply say, 'That's okay with me. In fact, to speed up the process, i'll expropiate this industry and give it to the workers so that they can form a cooperative'.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 04:02 am
But workers can decide if they want to be a part of those communal councils.
You can't form a communal council that isn't friendly with the government. I've already stated that. And at the workplace these councils which are doing chavez's job, they hire other workers temporarilily-- they can bully other workers into not accepting minimum wage. If the workers of the industry go on strike because they hate their conditions-- they will be replaced by another council.


Also, Chavez has created the right conditions for people to actually get power, even if his plan is to social-democratize Venezuela.

The problem is, this isn't Sims City!


Workers in social democratic governments have a much better chance in revolution than, say, USA, China, Britain...
Okay, prove this! Show the correlation!
I didn't know Venezuela was considered social-democratic!


Thus, they elected Chavez? And even saved him from a coup?

Thats the problem with bourgeois democracy, because of its traditions everyone just expects the leaders of parties to do it all for them. And yet they are surprized when nothing ever happens. The reason why nothing happens is because the old structure is in place.

Supporting a pette-bourgeois government against a bourgeois coup has nothing to do with socialism. So what groups of Chavistas demanded their precious leader be left alone, while the opposition fumbled and bumbled!

[Tatarin]

I didn't know Venezuela was considered social-democratic!

You don't expect Chavez to create a socialist utopia, do you?


Thats the problem with bourgeois democracy, because of its traditions everyone just expects the leaders of parties to do it all for them.

Not everything for them, but at least better kind of system. Would you rather live in a completely priatized society than a social democratic society?


And yet they are surprized when nothing ever happens. The reason why nothing happens is because the old structure is in place.

Communal councils are a part of the "old system"?


Supporting a pette-bourgeois government against a bourgeois coup has nothing to do with socialism.

At least people aren't supporting a US puppet government.

[Herman]

You can't form a communal council that isn't friendly with the government. I've already stated that. And at the workplace these councils which are doing chavez's job, they hire other workers temporarilily-- they can bully other workers into not accepting minimum wage. If the workers of the industry go on strike because they hate their conditions-- they will be replaced by another council.

Again, the government isn't controlling anything! They might fund these councils but they do not interfere! There have been many people belonging to councils in fact who on the radio (RNV) have publicly have criticized Chavez for several of his policies.

Besides, you can't prove this.

Stop being an ultra-leftist already. Learn to compromise on some aspects of your belief.

[Luís Henrique]

And if Chavez government is deposed, and the gusanos that take power unleash a brutal crackdown on the Venezolan workers, the philistines of our "ultra"-left will tell us that nothing happened, and that the mass murder of Venezolan workers is the same as Chavez's councils, as they are both bourgeois.

With leftists like that, who needs a right wing?

Luís Henrique

[IronColumn]

The working class of Venezuela will only be defeated if they let themselves be lulled by social-democratic promises from the Chavez supporting psuedo-left. If the workers grow more class conscious, and attempt to manage the means of production themselves (as they are doing now in fits and starts, see my submission in the news section), we will no doubt see a crackdown, but most likely from the capitalist "left" (as in Kronstadt and Catalonia, Budapest and Prague) which so many intellectual bankrupts have been supporting.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Tatarin, sorry but I'm not falling for a pette-bourgeois government talking revolutionary slogans.


Originally posted by RedHerman
you can't prove this.
It's not unproven.
Its based on accounts of people who live there.


Stop being an ultra-leftist already. Learn to compromise on some aspects of your belief.
Nope.
Because if you compromise one thing you compromise everything!
If you think you make headway with compromises I suggest you look at all the labour parties in the world.


And if Chavez government is deposed, and the gusanos that take power unleash a brutal crackdown on the Venezolan workers, the philistines of our "ultra"-left will tell us that nothing happened, and that the mass murder of Venezolan workers is the same as Chavez's councils, as they are both bourgeois.

With leftists like that, who needs a right wing?

Luís Henrique

What is with these wishy-washy "revolutionary" socialist chess-players who don't stick to their principles! They think they are being practical, and pragmatic. They think they are turning every opportunity into agit/prop, and form temporary alliances-- instead their alliances change everything they stood for. They lose class-based insights, and talk nationalism and third-worldism instead.

With socialists like these, who needs capitalists!

[Herman]

It's not unproven.
Its based on accounts of people who live there.

Perhaps you'd like to show these accounts?


Nope.
Because if you compromise one thing you compromise everything!
If you think you make headway with compromises I suggest you look at all the labour parties in the world.

What are you talking about? I'm not saying you should become a social-democrat or liberal.

You can make a great headway with compromises, but not in the level that the labour parties compromise. You can keep wanting socialism and still compromise you know.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by EL [email protected] 26, 2007 02:19 am
What is with these wishy-washy "revolutionary" socialist chess-players who don't stick to their principles!
The principle we should stick with is, class struggle against the bourgeois and their state. Beyond that, everything is tactical.


They think they are being practical, and pragmatic. They think they are turning every opportunity into agit/prop, and form temporary alliances-- instead their alliances change everything they stood for.

And which temporary alliance have I formed, for Karl-Rosa-Leo sake?

I stand for proletarian power - but to the proletariat to bid for power, it must first of all exist as a class.


They lose class-based insights, and talk nationalism and third-worldism instead.

My insights remain class-based. The same cannot be said of those who believe the working class should be indifferent towards the political form the bourgeois chose to oppress us.


With socialists like these, who needs capitalists!

You certainly don't need them.

Luís Henrique

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by EL [email protected] 26, 2007 02:19 am

And if Chavez government is deposed, and the gusanos that take power unleash a brutal crackdown on the Venezolan workers, the philistines of our "ultra"-left will tell us that nothing happened, and that the mass murder of Venezolan workers is the same as Chavez's councils, as they are both bourgeois.

With leftists like that, who needs a right wing?

Luís Henrique

What is with these wishy-washy "revolutionary" socialist chess-players who don't stick to their principles! They think they are being practical, and pragmatic. They think they are turning every opportunity into agit/prop, and form temporary alliances-- instead their alliances change everything they stood for. They lose class-based insights, and talk nationalism and third-worldism instead.

With socialists like these, who needs capitalists!
Yeah, I know what you mean, that fella Karl had the same annoying habit.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by RedHerman+August 26, 2007 03:14 pm--> (RedHerman @ August 26, 2007 03:14 pm) Perhaps you'd like to show these accounts? [/b]
The article already mentioned how you can't get funding unless the council is government friendly.

As for the co-ops
http://en.internationalism.org/ICConline/2...vism_fraud.html (http://en.internationalism.org/ICConline/2006/march/chavism_fraud.html)


What are you talking about? I'm not saying you should become a social-democrat or liberal.

Sounds very well like you are, you agree with Chavez that I'm either with him or against him, and therefore if I'm against him I'm with the opposition. You say he's social-democrat. You say I should have faith in his rule by decree, his allowing the steel company to remain privatized, the oil handed over to Citgo-- I could on! But ultimately I must look at the presents hes given the workers-- ooooh aaah!. Despite this the wealthiest 20% have 43% of the countrys money while the poorest 20% have like 3%.


You can make a great headway with compromises, but not in the level that the labour parties compromise. You can keep wanting socialism and still compromise you know.

Oh yes totally! Like you said, you can push for workers cooperatives while keeping the old bosses in power, allow some sectors to stay privatized, and allow the sectors to be under the distribution and markets of multi-nationals! Cooperatives will flourish for sure!


Luis
My insights remain class-based. The same cannot be said of those who believe the working class should be indifferent towards the political form the bourgeois chose to oppress us.

I'm not indifferent, I'm just not with you, your buddy Chavez or the opposition.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by PRC-[email protected] 27, 2007 03:04 am
Yeah, I know what you mean, that fella Karl had the same annoying habit.
I must've hit a raw nerve since every top-downist hasn't the faith in their fellow top-downists to reply to me, and so they all must reply with some marginal comment.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by EL KABLAMO+August 27, 2007 03:13 am--> (EL KABLAMO @ August 27, 2007 03:13 am)
PRC-[email protected] 27, 2007 03:04 am
Yeah, I know what you mean, that fella Karl had the same annoying habit.
I must've hit a raw nerve since every top-downist hasn't the faith in their fellow top-downists to reply to me, and so they all must reply with some marginal comment. [/b]
If you consider it marginal to explain that your ultraleft "principles" come from outside of Marxian thought, that's your choice.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by PRC-[email protected] 27, 2007 03:26 am
If you consider it marginal to explain that your ultraleft "principles" come from outside of Marxian thought, that's your choice.
Well if you consider Chavez a Marxist...

[Herman]

The article already mentioned how you can't get funding unless the council is government friendly.

And here's another articles which explains further how these councils work and solutions to several problems: http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1975


As for the co-ops

As for the co-ops... Here (http://ispsoemalaga.org/2007/06/28/venezuela-la-organizacion-de-los-trabajadores-cogestionarios-y-la-construccion-de-la-empresa-socialista-el-freteco-y-la-empresa-socialista/)

I assume you can read Spanish?


Sounds very well like you are, you agree with Chavez that I'm either with him or against him, and therefore if I'm against him I'm with the opposition.

I don't recall ever saying such thing. I don't 'agree' with Chavez. I support what he does and his attempt to promote bolivarian socialism.


You say he's social-democrat.

No, I don't say that.


You say I should have faith in his rule by decree,

I'd rather have this than have 'Justice first' in power.


his allowing the steel company to remain privatized,

Which in time will be nationalized. Patience.


the oil handed over to Citgo

But most of the oil is nationalized anyway.


-- I could on! But ultimately I must look at the presents hes given the workers-- ooooh aaah!. Despite this the wealthiest 20% have 43% of the countrys money while the poorest 20% have like 3%.

Ah! It takes one day to change everything, doesn't it? You want changes now! Capitalism having existed for two centuries, deep and entrenched in society it is (to quote Yoda) and you want to pull the roots quickly without facing the short-term consequences! Since you're so eager to get the workers to rise up and establish a worker's state, go to Venezuela and get to it.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by EL [email protected] 27, 2007 03:08 am
The article already mentioned how you can't get funding unless the council is government friendly.
So, you can't get funding unless the council is government friendly.

Which is quit different from "you can't form a council that's not government friendly".

Typical gusano distortion: Venezuela is a dictatorship. Why? Because the government refuses to fund oppositionist activities, imagine!

But since when revolutionaries count on government money to fund their activity?


Despite this the wealthiest 20% have 43% of the countrys money while the poorest 20% have like 3%.

Which, of course, is a personal invention of Chavez. It has nothing to do with Venezolan history, no.


I'm not indifferent, I'm just not with you, your buddy Chavez or the opposition.

What would you do in April 2002, "oppose both"?

Luís Henrique

[Devrim]

Originally posted by PRC-[email protected] 27, 2007 03:26 am
If you consider it marginal to explain that your ultraleft "principles" come from outside of Marxian thought, that's your choice.
The ideas that are accused here of being 'ultraleft' come from inside Marxism. Anybody with historical knowledge of the Marxist movement can see their development in both the Second, and Third Internationals. Indeed, Lenin's infamous pamphlet on the subject was directed at communist militants who had not only been active in the Second International, but had been among the first in Europe to support the October revolution.

Devrim

[Philosophical Materialist]

I am cautious but see this as a step in the right direction. There is an attempt by Chavez to increase democracy amongst the proletariat and this should be supported. I recognise that reformism has limited scope for truly socialist progression, and there comes a point when Chavez has to reconcile his own position of power with the desire of the politically-conscious in the proletariat to bring the DotP forward and bring Venezuela to the socialist stage.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Don't worry, I'll reply later once I have time.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by devrimankara+August 27, 2007 01:53 pm--> (devrimankara @ August 27, 2007 01:53 pm)
PRC-[email protected] 27, 2007 03:26 am
If you consider it marginal to explain that your ultraleft "principles" come from outside of Marxian thought, that's your choice.
The ideas that are accused here of being 'ultraleft' come from inside Marxism. Anybody with historical knowledge of the Marxist movement can see their development in both the Second, and Third Internationals. Indeed, Lenin's infamous pamphlet on the subject was directed at communist militants who had not only been active in the Second International, but had been among the first in Europe to support the October revolution.

Devrim [/b]
My point was that they're far to the left of Marx and would likely denounce the very influences that shaped his ideas such as the Paris Commune for not being pure enough.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by PRC-UTE+August 29, 2007 03:13 pm--> (PRC-UTE @ August 29, 2007 03:13 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 01:53 pm

PRC-[email protected] 27, 2007 03:26 am
If you consider it marginal to explain that your ultraleft "principles" come from outside of Marxian thought, that's your choice.
The ideas that are accused here of being 'ultraleft' come from inside Marxism. Anybody with historical knowledge of the Marxist movement can see their development in both the Second, and Third Internationals. Indeed, Lenin's infamous pamphlet on the subject was directed at communist militants who had not only been active in the Second International, but had been among the first in Europe to support the October revolution.

Devrim
My point was that they're far to the left of Marx and would likely denounce the very influences that shaped his ideas such as the Paris Commune for not being pure enough. [/b]
Well, err...no. If you read their stuff they consider themselves to be the inheriotors of Marx. Actually by chance I was reading the ICC on it today. If we talk about later the last prominant figure to confront Stalin (and live) was Bordiga in 1926 when he told him he was the gravedigger of the revolution.

Was that a bit pure for you?

Devrim

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by redHerman+--> (redHerman)And here's another articles which explains further how these councils work and solutions to several problems: [/b]
I liked these statements:

The low rate of participation in many neighborhoods poses a challenge of turnout: how to get enough people to participate. What kinds of people are not participating? Why are they not participating? What motivated participants to get involved? When is popular participation not “too many evenings?”


Many people get involved because they can get funds for neighborhood improvements, but only if they form a council. Since the councils are so small, any one person can have a substantial effect on which projects are developed. Obviously the government can only give out money if it has it and in this respect Venezuela is more privileged than other countries.


. Another approach is even more ambitious—freeing people’s time by making participation part of their jobs. As Vice Minister Mota explained, “We need to arrange that employers will let employees off from work for a couple hours a week if they participate in a communal council. This could be coordinated by the state, like a form of community service.”

People don't feel the need to form councils, and they serve as helping the government with community projects. These aren't self-made revolutionary organs of the proletariat. These are communioty service.


I assume you can read Spanish?

Un poco.


I'd rather have this than have 'Justice first' in power.

Well it's certainly far from the proletariat taking control of society on their own.


Which in time will be nationalized. Patience.

I doubt it, even so, nationalization is different from socialization.


Ah! It takes one day to change everything, doesn't it? You want changes now! Capitalism having existed for two centuries, deep and entrenched in society it is (to quote Yoda) and you want to pull the roots quickly without facing the short-term consequences! Since you're so eager to get the workers to rise up and establish a worker's state, go to Venezuela and get to it.

I know the roots can't be pulled out quickly. Please, I know that proletarian revolution is a slow and arduous process, but this isn't revolution. Governments of the world place so much emphasis on candidates inside beaucracies-- they're to do it for you, you are to only mobilize for them. It's leaves the proletariat passive, without empowerment, without a sense of direction. Until they are forced into situtations where they have to take power, where they are faced with socialism or barbarism-- there will be a revolutionary proletariat. Yes, this development takes time, but it can't happen when bureaucrats do it for them. When the state tries to do it for them, then what is it? It is the state trying to pacify the proletariat, it is the state trying to make their job easier for themselves, it is state-capitalism!


Luis Henrique

So, you can't get funding unless the council is government friendly.

Which is quit different from "you can't form a council that's not government friendly".

If the council doesn't recieve funding, it can't achieve its purposes-- mainly that of construction. The council would have no purpose and disband.

I doubt the Bolivarian government would allow funding to a very radical council, that disagrees with both them and the opposition. You think they'd approve of such a council making videos, and publications that were against the government? No.
They'd probably try to suppress it.


Typical gusano distortion: Venezuela is a dictatorship. Why? Because the government refuses to fund oppositionist activities, imagine!

Eh Chavez is still a capitalist pig, with the circumstances at hand allowing rule by decree-- which could be considered dictatorial powers.

Gusano? :lol: I can't believe you called me that-- I guess the ancor tatoo on my hand gave it away. Pretty absolutist! "You're either with Chavez or against Chavez". Typical bullying.


But since when revolutionaries count on government money to fund their activity?

Since the government is trying to make revolutionaries!


Which, of course, is a personal invention of Chavez. It has nothing to do with Venezolan history, no.

He got rid of the IMF debt.
And he can't make resources become more evenly distributed?
(And he won't)
The government hasn't even implemented a progressive income tax!


What would you do in April 2002, "oppose both"?

I already expressed my opinion on that.