Chavez threatens to destroy the bourgeoisie

[Guest1]

Chavez threatens to destroy the bourgeoisie (http://www.marxist.com/chavez-threat-destroy-bourgeoisie261107.htm)
By Euler Calzadilla , Wanderci Silva Bueno and Darrall Cozens in Caracas
Monday, 26 November 2007

If Wednesday, November 21st belonged to the students and the teaching unions, Thursday, 22nd belonged to the workers from the factories and the government departments.

From 9 in the morning they had begun to gather outside the Teatro Teresa Carreno, numbering about 1500. These were representatives from workplaces who had come to plan their actions to ensure a "Yes" vote in the referendum on December 2nd.

Unfortunately, like many things here in Venezuela, the theatre wasn't open, so workers stood in small groups discussing while we wandered amongst them joining in the discussions and selling the paper El Militante. Workers were interested in discussing and we sold quite a few.

Many of these workers were already committed to one trade union organization or another - UBT (Union Bolivariana de Trabajadores - mainly in the building industry), FBT (Fuerza Bolivariana de Trabajadores - mainly in government ministries), Fuerza Socialista (concentrated in health and electricity) and others. The atmosphere was friendly however and when the price of the paper was asked many turned it down.

What I had not realized was the sacrifice that many workers make to buy a paper when many papers are distributed free by the government. Take the workers at LaFarge, a pre-mix cement company owned and controlled by a French multinational. A week ago 34 of them had been sacked and the workers were angry. We went with them over 2 days to the Ministry of Labour and to Miraflores. They earn 26,000 Bolivars per day, 4,000 above the minimum wage. The paper El Militante costs 1,500 or 2,000 as a solidarity price. If we take the average daily wage in the UK to be about 100 pounds, the equivalent cost of a socialist paper would be between 5 and 8 pounds! So workers buy a paper between them and share it.

The morning outside the Theatre dragged on in the heat. Groups of workers drifted off for coffee and food. Then the rumour began to circulate that Chavez himself would arrive at some time in the afternoon. The rumour took on substance when workers arrived with steel fencing to control entrances and exits, followed by detachments of the palace guard and military police.

By about 3pm groups of workers had begun to drift back to the Theatre. From just after 5pm they were allowed in. Remember that many of these workers had been up since 6am or before to get to the Theatre by 9am and only now were things beginning to happen. It was going to be a long day.

The place began to fill up until there were about 1,500 inside. Each trade union grouping began to shout slogans to challenge other groupings. The atmosphere was getting heated as each group tried to out-shout the other. Then came the slogan from someone in the audience "El Socialismo para acabar con el imperialismo." (Socialism to put an end to imperialism). All the groups stopped shouting their own individual slogans to take up the common one. This reflected the desire for unity amongst trade unionists to ensure a massive "Yes" vote for Chavez in the referendum and reveals the potential for unity amongst organized workers. In this context it is unfortunate that one or two of the leaders of the UNT have called for a "No" vote in the referendum, going against the feelings of unity and the wishes of large sections of the working class.

After the common chant, the different groups resorted once again to trying to out-shout the others and the atmosphere was becoming antagonistic and aggressive. The organisers realized this and put on music and songs to try and calm things down.

Just before 6pm the place was full. At about 6.30pm Chavez entered to cries of exhaltation - Chavez! Chavez! Chavez! Amongst the trade unionists there was a very large group of taxi drivers who would benefit directly from the proposed changes to the constitution. Under Article 87 they would receive pensions through the establishment of a social fund.

Each section was greeted in turn by Chavez. Each section responded in turn with cheers. He recounted how he liked to be with workers as when he was younger he too had been a worker before entering the military. Wolf whistles and "knowing" chants also erupted when he revealed that he had received a present from the model Naomi Campbell. Only after much provoking did he reply that it was a watch!

Then the serious message began. He had returned from France the day before to a mass rally of real students. They support the "Yes" vote. The universities will be changed to serve the majority, not the minority. The esqualidos (reactionaries) have stated that they will march on Miraflores, the Presidential palace, but they will not be allowed to.

Chavez was responding to threats by John Goicochea, the chief student voice of all the reactionary groups, who studies at the Catholic University, the most expensive university, where fees alone are 5 million Bs a month! Lafarge cement workers earn 26,000 Bs per day or about 0.75 million a month. Goicochea has been threatening a march of "No Return" for November 26th, tomorrow.

Chavez proclaimed that such a threatening march will be dissolved. The workers responded with cries of "Asi, Asi, Asi se gobierna" (That's the way to govern). The workers want firm action to be taken against the reactionaries and their paymasters.

Chavez then made a historical comparison between 1979 and 1999. In 1979 the Shah was overthrown in Iran and the Mullahs took over. The USA supported Saddam Hussein against Iran. In 1999 the Venezuelan Revolution began and there is no chance of a US invasion. "We have a million people in arms and if necessary we will arm the whole people."

The history lesson went further. In Russia the revolution was attacked and isolated. The best workers went to the front to fight off the invading imperialist armies. The revolution was isolated and the bureaucracy took power. "In Venezuela the working class has to be the vanguard of the revolutionary process for socialist power."

He continued. The Cuban revolution has lasted a long time due to a deep relationship with the masses. In Nicaragua the road of reformism led to tragic results. You cannot adapt to capitalism. It doesn't work. No to reformism, No to Bureaucracy!

He emphasized again and again that the working class is the vanguard but he also castigated many trade unions for not being able to rise above the arena of purely trade union demands. If this does not happen then the political level of the working class won't rise to the level needed to carry out the task of being the motor force of the revolution. This process will determine the timing and direction of the revolution. We should pass onto the offensive as under capitalism we use defensive actions to protect conditions. The only way to guarantee Popular Power is if the working class plays the leading role.

Under the constitutional changes, he continues, the workers councils in the factories will establish relations with peasant, student and community councils [in effect setting up embryonic soviets - DC]. If this happens then what happened in the Soviet Union and Nicaragua won't happen. The aim of all of this is to establish Socialism in the country of Bolivar and - in response to a cry from the audience - in all of the Americas.

These consejos (councils) will receive money from the state to carry out specific projects, such as distributing gas bottles for cooking from the state oil company PdVSA. The budget for next year had been set and 46% will be devoted to social projects and infrastructure. "What other country does this?" he cries.

Yet the devil is in the detail. On the one hand Chavez sees the councils in different areas as alternative organs of power more closely related to the people and therefore theoretically more responsive. This is also a way to bypass the cumbersome and obstructive State bureaucracy. As he stated, "...workers councils will come into being in the factories, in the workplaces, but they should reach out to the communities and be fused into other councils of popular power: community councils, students councils, etc... What for? To shout slogans? To go around shouting long live Chavez? No!... To change the relationships in the workplace, to plan production, to take over piece by piece the functions of the government and to finish up by destroying the bourgeois state." So the aim is clear and Chavez is quite aware of this. To begin with, 5% of the budget will be passed to the councils. This should only be the beginning, as alternative centres of power cannot function unless they have sufficient funds to do so.

It is obvious that the newly formed councils that are emerging and will emerge after the success of the referendum will decide themselves to a large extent what their remit will be. For example under Art.70 workers councils will enable workers to democratically manage any enterprise that is direct or indirect social property, yet Art.184 talks about the participation of workers in the running of public enterprises.

Marxists realize that constitutions or agreements are pieces of paper that reflect the balance of forces between two or more parties at any given moment in time. The reality of the power of the councils will be fought out in the workplaces, the universities and the neighbourhoods, the communities.

The bosses will fiercely resist any attempt to take away their right to manage. Workers councils will not be set up to decide what colour paint should be on the walls! The workers, the state bureaucracy and the bosses will all have different conceptions of the role of workers councils. For workers it will be to defend and enhance conditions and to assume an ever-increasing role in the management of the company - a step towards workers' control and management.

Chavez is now beginning to come to his conclusions and as he does a new vocabulary now emerges. "We are going to destroy the bourgeoisie". Up to now he has always referred to the oligarchy. His final words are that we need to learn from the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky on how people can run society as well as from Gramsci on the role of workers' councils. As workers leave, they feel certain of their role in history and in the unfolding revolutionary process.

Chavez's words demonstrate that in the run up to the referendum political positions are hardening on both sides of the class divide. Subsequent to the meeting Chavez has even said that if he does not win the referendum, he will be off looking for a substitute to take over. Such words reflect the anxiety in the Chavez camp.

The likelihood is that Chavez will win the "Yes" vote. There is tremendous loyalty towards him from all those who had previously been excluded from wealth and power. The reforms of the past nine years have lifted people out of misery and degradation and given them real hope for the future. Disposable incomes have risen by 50% but there is inflation and shortages of essentials like milk. There is obviously sabotage by the bosses from stockpiling or cutting production in an attempt to discredit Chavez. The bosses have stopped investing and many factories are running at only 50% of capacity, so the bosses can sell all that they produce in this expanding market, they don't invest and therefore make super profits.

So a majority for Chavez is likely but the fear is abstention with only a 50% turnout. In the presidential elections of December 2006 the turnout was 75% and Chavez took 63% of the vote, a real mandate in bourgeois terms. The bureaucrats in charge of the "Yes" campaign have plenty of colour (red), plenty of music and songs, but very little explanation of what the reforms actually mean. The opposition has been producing full-page adverts in the press with a detailed analysis from their perspective. There have been outright lies such as each newborn child will belong not to the family but to the state, and freedom of religion will not be allowed. They seek to frighten people into voting "No".

From a Marxist perspective the best result on December 2nd will be a resounding "Yes". This will embolden people even further and take the revolution forward. Whatever the result however there will be a period of sharpening class struggle as workers, students and people in the barrios pursue their demands for better living standards and far more control over their lives, places of work and study. In the Bolivarian revolution people have awoken to political life and won't be easily put back into the cupboard. As Engels said, "The appetite increases with the eating."

The same process will also spew out those in the movement who have been consciously or unconsciously holding it back, who have no stomach for the fight to end capitalism and establish socialism in Venezuela.

[Labor Shall Rule]

This is good news.


"...workers councils will come into being in the factories, in the workplaces, but they should reach out to the communities and be fused into other councils of popular power: community councils, students councils, etc... What for? To shout slogans? To go around shouting long live Chavez? No!... To change the relationships in the workplace, to plan production, to take over piece by piece the functions of the government and to finish up by destroying the bourgeois state."

Things seem to be getting more serious now.

[RedStarOverChina]

Originally posted by Labor Shall [email protected] 27, 2007 06:47 am
This is good news.


"...workers councils will come into being in the factories, in the workplaces, but they should reach out to the communities and be fused into other councils of popular power: community councils, students councils, etc... What for? To shout slogans? To go around shouting long live Chavez? No!... To change the relationships in the workplace, to plan production, to take over piece by piece the functions of the government and to finish up by destroying the bourgeois state."

Things seem to be getting more serious now.
Chavez is willing to destabilize his own state? :blink: This goes against all logic. What kind of a ruler does that to his government? Maybe this guy is genuine.

If this is indeed his ultimate goal---the empowerment of workers and not just state charity, then I think we might be witnessing real, revolutionary change that echoes the Paris Commune. But I retain a healthy amount of skepticism.

"Change always comes from the strength of the weak, not the weakness of the strong"
--Marx

Could this be one of the rare "exceptions" in the history of human development?

[Tower of Bebel]

Originally posted by RSOC
Chavez is willing to destabilize his own state? blink.gif This goes against all logic.

The workers have put pressure on Chavez to give more power to working class organisations in order to fight imperialism.

[RedStarOverChina]

Originally posted by Rakunin+November 27, 2007 07:44 am--> (Rakunin @ November 27, 2007 07:44 am)
RSOC
Chavez is willing to destabilize his own state? blink.gif This goes against all logic.

The workers have put pressure on Chavez to give more power to working class organisations in order to fight imperialism. [/b]
Sources?

[AGITprop]

keeping a healthy amount of skepticism is aways good as to not be extremely dissapointted if the outcome is bad BUT, this i truly believe is genuine. The changes will come from south america. Chavez, although the leader of the country, knows that the power belongs to the people. ask me to quote my sources, i have none, but he would not make such a daring speech infront of thousands of unionists if he intended otherwise. (unless ofcourse he just wants to win a vote) the problem with him lying though, is that he people will have his skin if he does. Chavez i believe will be true to his word. if this is going to be the case though if chavez will fight to establish socialsm, its our jobs to make sure the united states, or anyoutside threat does not interfere. this is a milestone in history. and imagine a succesful attempt at socialim in our lifetimes? this may be one of the most important events of the 21st century if not the most.

[ComradeR]

This is extremely encouraging. This looks to be the beginning of a true socialist state in Venezuela.

Originally posted by RedStarOverChina
Chavez is willing to destabilize his own state? :blink: This goes against all logic. What kind of a ruler does that to his government? Maybe this guy is genuine.
It would appear so if he means what he says. However regardless of where Chavez actually stands the Venezuelan workers are becoming more revolutionary by the day, they won't allow Chavez to go back on his word.
It won't be Chavez that brings socialism to Venezuela, it will be the working class people.

[AGITprop]

Originally posted by ComradeR+November 27, 2007 01:52 pm--> (ComradeR @ November 27, 2007 01:52 pm) This is extremely encouraging. This looks to be the beginning of a true socialist state in Venezuela.

RedStarOverChina
Chavez is willing to destabilize his own state? :blink: This goes against all logic. What kind of a ruler does that to his government? Maybe this guy is genuine.
It would appear so if he means what he says. However regardless of where Chavez actually stands the Venezuelan workers are becoming more revolutionary by the day, they won't allow Chavez to go back on his word.
It won't be Chavez that brings socialism to Venezuela, it will be the working class people. [/b]
ofcourse it will be the working class, but this time it will the people, the studnts, the workes and all ths because Chavez is going to give the people the means. it is not the traditional workers revolution but ow do you feel about this situation. do you think uccess is possible if it is the government that attempts to etablish socialism with the aid of the people?

[ComradeR]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 02:11 pm
ofcourse it will be the working class, but this time it will the people, the studnts, the workes and all ths because Chavez is going to give the people the means. it is not the traditional workers revolution but ow do you feel about this situation. do you think uccess is possible if it is the government that attempts to etablish socialism with the aid of the people?
When it finally reaches the point to smash the bourgeois state it will not be the government that will do so but the people themselves.
Chavez is playing a very important role in this, he is helping to radicalize the workers and provide leadership. However it will be the workers that will make the revolution happen, not the government. history is not made by individuals but by the people and material conditions.

[AGITprop]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 02:51 pm

When it finally reaches the point to smash the bourgeois state it will not be the government that will do so but the people themselves.
Chavez is playing a very important role in this, he is helping to radicalize the workers and provide leadership. However it will be the workers that will make the revolution happen, not the government. history is not made by individuals but by the people and material conditions.
ofcourse you are correct although if it were not for Chavez's important leadership roe the people woud be no where near this point. Now the fun begins.

[spartan]

This is great news for every Socialist in the world!

If Chavez really means what he says then true non-Bureaucratic workers control of the means of production will be a reality in our lifetime! :)

[Ultra-Violence]

chavez is a great man BUT! hes also a politicain BUT! This is very good NewsBUT!lets hope he means what he says. i just like him more and more really

[Entrails Konfetti]

Under the constitutional changes, he continues, the workers councils in the factories will establish relations with peasant, student and community councils [in effect setting up embryonic soviets - DC]. If this happens then what happened in the Soviet Union and Nicaragua won't happen. The aim of all of this is to establish Socialism in the country of Bolivar and - in response to a cry from the audience - in all of the Americas

This is silly, you cannot mandate workers organizations from above. Only workers can do that themselves. This is like putting it to refferendum if you should scratch your itchy back or not.

All these councils serve to do is the public service for the Bolivarian government.

[Herman]

All these councils serve to do is the public service for the Bolivarian government.

And this is bad... why exactly?

[AGITprop]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 06:37 pm

All these councils serve to do is the public service for the Bolivarian government.

And this is bad... why exactly?
good call

[manic expression]

Originally posted by EL [email protected] 27, 2007 06:17 pm

Under the constitutional changes, he continues, the workers councils in the factories will establish relations with peasant, student and community councils [in effect setting up embryonic soviets - DC]. If this happens then what happened in the Soviet Union and Nicaragua won't happen. The aim of all of this is to establish Socialism in the country of Bolivar and - in response to a cry from the audience - in all of the Americas

This is silly, you cannot mandate workers organizations from above. Only workers can do that themselves. This is like putting it to refferendum if you should scratch your itchy back or not.

All these councils serve to do is the public service for the Bolivarian government.
At the same time, workers in Venezuela have been organizing themselves into community organs and the like (the Bolivarian Circles being one example). Worker self-organization may not be full-fledged in Venezuela, but it is certainly a start that can be built on.

[Forward Union]

"The king is dead, long live the king"! :rolleyes:

[LOTFW]

This is great news for every Socialist in the world!

If Chavez really means what he says then true non-Bureaucratic workers control of the means of production will be a reality in our lifetime!


HA HA HA. Sure he will. And in about 5 years, he'll announce there's no need for banks or insurance or police.

He may mean well, but he's NOT a revolutionary. Revolutionaries grab tanks, not ballots. They crash through buildings; they don't visit the United Nations and go shopping in Manhattan.

I don't know what to make of this guy. He lives in a world of high finance and market prices and talks about Socialism.

[black magick hustla]

I think that taking the side of "chavismo" or of "anti-chavismo" is bad.

Chavez is not a revolutionary socialist. However, saying that openings arent happening for working class self-organization is just ivory tower ultraleftism.

All sorts of popular councils are emerging, and there have been calls of reducing work time to 6 hours per day....

Using the "ballots" is a tool, but not an end in itself. The ballots themselves won't bring revolution, self-organization will.

The job of communists is to push toward revolution. However, it is not in rabid ultraleft anti-chavismo, nor riding the coattail of a populist as trotskyists do.

[AGITprop]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 07:20 pm
I think that taking the side of "chavismo" or of "anti-chavismo" is bad.

Chavez is not a revolutionary socialist. However, saying that openings arent happening for working class self-organization is just ivory tower ultraleftism.

All sorts of popular councils are emerging, and there have been calls of reducing work time to 6 hours per day....

Using the "ballots" is a tool, but not an end in itself. The ballots themselves won't bring revolution, self-organization will.

The job of communists is to push toward revolution. However, it is not in rabid ultraleft anti-chavismo, nor riding the coattail of a populist as trotskyists do.
you are right.but people WILL organize. Chavez is acting like the catalyst for the process to occur. he is not a revolutionnary but hes heading in the right direction and people will take up the purtunity to make change. I would not critisize his intentons to much. just because he isnt a "revolutionary" does not mean e is not to be listened to. His aims and goals seem to be in the right place.

[LOTFW]

Marmot:

I don't disagree w/ your approach. I simply believe that the local work councils will EVENTUALLY become directed by the federal Venezuelan authority (i.e., Chavez himself and his closest people), IF the people are not vigilent enough to fight Chavez when need be. MOST OF THE TIME (IF NOT ALL OF THE TIME) dictatorships result in just that, witht the resf of the people taking dictation.

[spartan]

Marmot:

I don't disagree w/ your approach. I simply believe that the local work councils will EVENTUALLY become directed by the federal Venezuelan authority (i.e., Chavez himself and his closest people), IF the people are not vigilent enough to fight Chavez when need be. MOST OF THE TIME (IF NOT ALL OF THE TIME) dictatorships result in just that, witht the resf of the people taking dictation.
Yeah but it's a Socialist dictatorship so who gives a shit?

[AGITprop]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 07:43 pm

Marmot:

I don't disagree w/ your approach. I simply believe that the local work councils will EVENTUALLY become directed by the federal Venezuelan authority (i.e., Chavez himself and his closest people), IF the people are not vigilent enough to fight Chavez when need be. MOST OF THE TIME (IF NOT ALL OF THE TIME) dictatorships result in just that, witht the resf of the people taking dictation.
Yeah but it's a Socialist dictatorship so who gives a shit?
i do
were not here for socialist dictatorship
might as wel bring stalin back from the dead and kill Chavez
we want workers taking control of their workplaces
we want people to communicate with each other to organize and mobilize
we want people to iprove their own situations throuh cooperation and not to be TOLD hw things should be

[LOTFW]

Ender beat me to it. I believe the last chapter of Animal Farm will be the result of ANY dictatorship from a central capital city. It's just the way of the world.

[AGITprop]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 08:02 pm
Ender beat me to it. I believe the last chapter of Animal Farm will be the result of ANY dictatorship from a central capital city. It's just the way of the world.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely

[manic expression]

Originally posted by Ender+November 27, 2007 09:07 pm--> (Ender @ November 27, 2007 09:07 pm)
[email protected] 27, 2007 08:02 pm
Ender beat me to it. I believe the last chapter of Animal Farm will be the result of ANY dictatorship from a central capital city. It's just the way of the world.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely [/b]
That's right class, and that is why the founding fathers gave us checks and balances. :rolleyes:

Come on guys, you know as well as I do that class interest drives politics. If working class organizations are made the center of government, the government will be a working class government. Don't be so naive to think that power is some entity unto itself: power is based in class society.

And on edit: Animal Farm was written by a democratic socialist who had no concept of either history or class. Orwell would get thrown into OI if he tried to post here.

[spartan]

And on edit: Animal Farm was written by a democratic socialist who had no concept of either history or class. Orwell would get thrown into OI if he tried to post here.
That says more about the people who run this forum then George Orwell.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 11:05 pm

And on edit: Animal Farm was written by a democratic socialist who had no concept of either history or class. Orwell would get thrown into OI if he tried to post here.
That says more about the people who run this forum then George Orwell.
It says that democratic socialists aren't actually revolutionaries. That, coincidentally, is a fact.

[Marxist Napoleon]

I think you're missing the point of Animal Farm. It was an allegory for a specific period in time; Stalin's Soviet Union. The entire book was a criticism of Stalin. It praised Lenin, Marx, and Trotsky. It's wrong to draw the vague conclusion that "dictatorship is wrong," because by now we should now that every state is a dictatorship. The word dictatorship, when used in the Marxist sense, means state power, not totalitarianism or fascism. Animal Farm wasn't about how bad presidents are or how every single government is totalitarian; that's ultraleftist idealist nonsense. We should be wary of the abuse of power in Animal Farm, but let's get one thing straight: FIDEL AND HUGO ARE NOT STALIN!

[LOTFW]

A lot to write about here:

First of all, I agree w/ Ender: Absolute power corrupts absolutely. That is a fact. It has nothing to do w/ class revolution. If power is placed into the hands of one person, that person will, over time, become corrupted by it. The American Revolutionaries should be judged w/ in their time, and not by Marx or class revolution. The Federalist Papers discussed a world beyond absolute monarchy, and a new society. Be kind to people and the times in which they live. Jefferson, though owning slaves, was a champion of the rights of men versus the power of the state; Lincoln was a civil right leader for his time; King was a civil rights leader, though his religious views would buy him no friends here, or the world of same sex relationships.

Re: friend Orwell. I believe the allegory of Animal Farm was summed up in its final line: that as one looked from the pig to the man, one could not tell the difference from the two. That was Orwell's warning, based on his pessimism over the human condition and socialism, that socialist leaders would want the same lifestyle as capitalists, though they may lead a revolution. It is wise counsel.

Castro did not become a Stalin because he could not become one: he had/has no base of raw materials. To say that Chavez is not a Stalin is not a known factor at this time. Time will tell. Venezuela has vast resources and $$ from oil. If it becomes a powerful nation, who's to say he won't become obsessed by power personally, or try to export his revolution on his terms? Time will tell.

But if 5 years from now, Chavez is still using capitalist methods while preaching socialism, I stand by my Animal Farm comparison.

[Louis Pio]

I agree with the people who talked about how the masspressure is the source of this.
Now the next step is to get a yes on the constitution referendum, here in the west the media tells all sorst of lies so I hope people here will write letters and such so we can at least dispell some of the lies.

A yes to the referendum is crucial, the constitution have parts which threatens private property and the mass of people see this as a big step forward.

So get going people, Venezuela needs your solidarity

[Marxist Napoleon]

Again, the reference of the pigs being the same as men refers to the Stalinist bureaucracy. Orwell supported Marx, Lenin, and Trotsky in Animal Farm, and Lenin was no anti-authoritarian anarchy-loving idealist.

To stick with the topic of this post, Chavez has shown time and time again that he changes when the people exert pressure. This is THEIR revolution, and Chavez knows it. Look at his speeches from the past and look now. More importantly, look at what he advocated and what he advocates now. This speech, in my opinion, proves Chavez's tendency for shifting his political opinions more and more to the left. Solidarity with the Venezuelan revolution!

[manic expression]

Originally posted by Marxist [email protected] 28, 2007 12:22 am
I think you're missing the point of Animal Farm. It was an allegory for a specific period in time; Stalin's Soviet Union. The entire book was a criticism of Stalin. It praised Lenin, Marx, and Trotsky. It's wrong to draw the vague conclusion that "dictatorship is wrong," because by now we should now that every state is a dictatorship. The word dictatorship, when used in the Marxist sense, means state power, not totalitarianism or fascism. Animal Farm wasn't about how bad presidents are or how every single government is totalitarian; that's ultraleftist idealist nonsense. We should be wary of the abuse of power in Animal Farm, but let's get one thing straight: FIDEL AND HUGO ARE NOT STALIN!
OK, I agree with your general view, although I disagree a bit on Orwell's intentions. Thanks for the clarification.

LOTFW

First of all, I agree w/ Ender: Absolute power corrupts absolutely. That is a fact. It has nothing to do w/ class revolution. If power is placed into the hands of one person, that person will, over time, become corrupted by it. The American Revolutionaries should be judged w/ in their time, and not by Marx or class revolution. The Federalist Papers discussed a world beyond absolute monarchy, and a new society. Be kind to people and the times in which they live. Jefferson, though owning slaves, was a champion of the rights of men versus the power of the state; Lincoln was a civil right leader for his time; King was a civil rights leader, though his religious views would buy him no friends here, or the world of same sex relationships.

"Absolute power corrupts absolutely" is a view that rests on the presumption that is non-materialist. Power stems from class society; power is based in the dominance of one class over other classes. Individuals do not just have power fall on their lap Sunday morning, they get power by pursuing their class interests.

The American Revolutionaries were influenced by Locke and Montesquieu and Paine and Smith, and so they believed in the "absolute power corrups absolutely" viewpoint. I'm not insulting the founding fathers necessarily, I'm pointing out that they, being bourgeois, feared the abstract notion of "power" because they wanted to restrict change in the system.


Castro did not become a Stalin because he could not become one: he had/has no base of raw materials. To say that Chavez is not a Stalin is not a known factor at this time. Time will tell. Venezuela has vast resources and $$ from oil. If it becomes a powerful nation, who's to say he won't become obsessed by power personally, or try to export his revolution on his terms? Time will tell.

Castro did not become Stalin because Castro was never the pet of the bureaucrats that Stalin was. Cuba never deformed like the USSR did, and so there has never been a place for a Stalin in Cuba.

To say that Chavez could be a Stalin proves nothing.


But if 5 years from now, Chavez is still using capitalist methods while preaching socialism, I stand by my Animal Farm comparison.

Are you saying that Stalin used capitalist methods?

[LOTFW]

This speech, in my opinion, proves Chavez's tendency for shifting his political opinions more and more to the left.

Many have pointed out that a president's tenure in Venezuela is only as good as the price of gasoline remains low. I'm never convinced by ANYONE who wants to remain in power for nearly all of their lifetime. A People's revolution must be tested by the transition of one individual to another, and the revolution maintained.



Solidarity with the Venezuelan revolution!

Here we find agreement.


from manic:


Are you saying that Stalin used capitalist methods?

That's exactly what I'm saying. And his obsession over insuring he stays in power as long as possible is the biggest strike against him.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by Ender+November 27, 2007 06:40 pm--> (Ender @ November 27, 2007 06:40 pm)
[email protected] 27, 2007 06:37 pm

All these councils serve to do is the public service for the Bolivarian government.

And this is bad... why exactly?
good call [/b]
Good call, the workers will volunteer to clean up litter and dog poop within the councils the government made for them! Oh yes, the workers are solving the riddle of history by cleaning up dog-shit! Fantastic!

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 07:20 pm
I think that taking the side of "chavismo" or of "anti-chavismo" is bad.

Its bad because if you take the anti-side you are accussed of being bourgeois. As if people are so narrow-headed.


Chavez is not a revolutionary socialist. However, saying that openings arent happening for working class self-organization is just ivory tower ultraleftism.

And saying there ARE openings is just ivory tower utopianism. You are scrying over a crystal ball saying Chavez is doing this, and the future action will develop into such and such-- you have no idea, there is no correlation between community service volunteerism and workers-councils.

And yes I do have an idea of how real workers councils form, I learned that from history. I repeat it hasnt been proven that workers-councils form from mandates from above and volunteerism.


Using the "ballots" is a tool, but not an end in itself. The ballots themselves won't bring revolution, self-organization will.

No, ballots suborndinate workers movement to figureheads that sell-out. They need
to be the conscious movers of history, not passers by.
With your logic might as well vote for David Bowie, bourgeois politics is a joke, atleast with him it will be entertaining, and his high priced concerts would be free.

[VukBZ2005]

Originally posted by LOTFW
Castro did not become a Stalin because he could not become one: he had/has no base of raw materials.
Even though this is unrelated to this general post, I need to point out that Cuba has large amounts of nickel ore, in addition to sizable amounts of iron ore and vast amounts of petroleum and natural gas reserves in its northern territorial waters. Your assertion that Cuba has no base of raw materials at all demonstrates, to those that possess more than enough information on Cuba, that you are not that well informed and thus, you are not in right position to be making such an assertion.

[VukBZ2005]

Originally posted by EL KABLAMO
And saying there ARE openings is just ivory tower utopianism. You are scrying over a crystal ball saying Chavez is doing this, and the future action will develop into such and such-- you have no idea, there is no correlation between community service volunteerism and workers-councils.

And yes I do have an idea of how real workers councils form, I learned that from history. I repeat it hasnt been proven that workers-councils form from mandates from above and volunteerism.

First of all, it must be stated that workers councils have formed in Venezuela that are independent of the Chavez administration and that many of these independent workers councils are federated in an organization whose main intention is to spread out that model throughout Venezuela's manufacturing industries. Now, there are those of you that state that this organization is not significant at all and that it does not represent the entire Venezuelan working class and so on. My response to you is that it represents a potential basis that will eventually become the real heart of the Venezuelan revolution, for they are representing, albeit they may have, fortunately, appeared a bit earlier than they should have, the real aspirations of the Venezuelan working class. So, in a sense, they are representing the entire Venezuelan working class.

And second of all, it must be stated that any action that promotes the development of working class control over the means of production in Venezuela by official structures are actions that we must support, while maintaining a necessary, but healthy level of criticism. To negate the importance of supporting such actions and by stating that they are basically unimportant to the situation that currently exists in Venezuela is to demonstrate to those that are better informed on that situation and to those that are in the midst of that situation that we care more about "ideological purity" than about actual situations.

I want to see what you say about that.

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 01:36 am
I agree with the people who talked about how the masspressure is the source of this.
Now the next step is to get a yes on the constitution referendum, here in the west the media tells all sorst of lies so I hope people here will write letters and such so we can at least dispell some of the lies.

A yes to the referendum is crucial, the constitution have parts which threatens private property and the mass of people see this as a big step forward.

So get going people, Venezuela needs your solidarity
Indeed, the mass pressure is the cause of this. Chavez has said all kinds of odd things, calling himself a Marxist one day, not a Marxist the next, not a communist one day, etc. At least he is supportive of mass pressure, though.

There is definitely a reason why the media is making so much fuss about this (in one of my issues of The Economist, there is a caption of a guy on a motorcycle brandishing a handgun, the caption depicting this guy as a "Chavista." That guy in the picture was probably one of those right-wingers that have been provoking the stuff at the universities.). The bourgeoisie know that this referendum will make it easier to expropriate them, and the workers seeing the gains from their vote will feel even more empowered.

Those that do not support the Venezuelan revolution are hardcore sectarians. The Venezuelan revolution is the most advanced spot of revolutionary activity on the globe.

[LOTFW]

Even though this is unrelated to this general post, I need to point out that Cuba has large amounts of nickel ore, in addition to sizable amounts of iron ore and vast amounts of petroleum and natural gas reserves in its northern territorial waters. Your assertion that Cuba has no base of raw materials at all demonstrates, to those that possess more than enough information on Cuba, that you are not that well informed and thus, you are not in right position to be making such an assertion.

Cuba also has sugar, and some other resources. But it doesn't have what Stalin and Venezuela had/have: a large land and mineral resource that can

1. allow it to be nearly self sufficient
2. allow it to export itself into a world power (or at least a player) and withstand an embargo

The list of materials you give have not been exploited to make them such a world player in the past 40 years. As more and more countries lifted their embargo against Cuba and trade with it, Cuba did not exploit these resources and devlope itself into a modern nation (in some ways it's like visting both the 50s and the 21st Century at the same time.)

I have no objections; I like Cuba the way it is. But it could have never made itself into a Russia, China or Venezuela.

I don't see how you can critizise me over this matter.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by Communist [email protected] 28, 2007 05:09 am
First of all, it must be stated that workers councils have formed in Venezuela that are independent of the Chavez administration and that many of these independent workers councils are federated in an organization whose main intention is to spread out that model throughout Venezuela's manufacturing industries.
Yeah thats why, it has to be put to vote whether councils should exist or not.


Now, there are those of you that state that this organization is not significant at all and that it does not represent the entire Venezuelan working class and so on.
Why aren't you saying which organization it is?


And second of all, it must be stated that any action that promotes the development of working class control over the means of production in Venezuela by official structures are actions that we must support, while maintaining a necessary, but healthy level of criticism.

You cannot make workers form councils that will enact their real historic duty, they have to understand why they must form these councils-- not because the government is willing to give them money for projects, and to distribute gas. Why don't you just call the charities workers councils.


To negate the importance of supporting such actions and by stating that they are basically unimportant to the situation that currently exists in Venezuela is to demonstrate to those that are better informed on that situation and to those that are in the midst of that situation that we care more about "ideological purity" than about actual situations.

Now you're trying to say "I had to have been there to know', well, I've read reports by people who've been there which say the same things as I.

Now you try to turn this into some superficial thing about ideological purity. That its a difference of ideology how workers councils form. In some areas it could be that there are real workers councils have formed. In this case the government is anticipating the creation of more through vote, trying to subordinate the real ones into enacting community clean up and other menial tasks, to enact government policies on businesses. Workers councils are not the goons of the government, they are the basis of the new society, that has to be their own aspiration, this is the fundemental to any revolutionary socialism. Otherwise it isn't socialism.
Do I have to clarify anymore? You can not MAKE the working-class play a leading role.


I want to see what you say about that.

I've commented before on this situation in Venezuela
http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=69880&hl=

[Herman]

Good call, the workers will volunteer to clean up litter and dog poop within the councils the government made for them! Oh yes, the workers are solving the riddle of history by cleaning up dog-shit! Fantastic!

Harharhar. Keeping the streets clean is an important job too, you know. Or would you prefer to walk on garbage and, as you say, "dog shit"?


You cannot make workers form councils that will enact their real historic duty, they have to understand why they must form these councils-- not because the government is willing to give them money for projects, and to distribute gas. Why don't you just call the charities workers councils.

Oh please. You show a lack of information on how the councils, let alone the previous "models" of communal councils. You believe that they're somehow a product of the government and at the same time believing that the government is "bad", all being contrary to worker's interests.


Now you're trying to say "I had to have been there to know', well, I've read reports by people who've been there which say the same things as I.

Oh really? Really? Is that so? You've read reports by "people" who've been there, have you? Perhaps you'd like to point out where we can find these sources or anything like them. I am dying to know where you get your information (my best guess is that you most likely got your stuff from some tiny ultra-leftist group in Venezuela who side with the opposition and the rest of the reactionaries).


Yeah thats why, it has to be put to vote whether councils should exist or not.

What do you mean "it has to be put to vote" whether councils should exist or not? Are you saying that you'd rather not see councils at all?

There's no need to put anything to the vote. A law was passed called "Law on Communal Councils" which allowed their creation and officially recognized the already existing ones. The constitutional reform is also going to explain what the role of these councils are within the current social structure. If you have bothered to read what the changes in the constitution are, you will see that in fact the Venezuelan communal councils are going to be empowered even more.

[VukBZ2005]

Originally posted by LOTFW+--> (LOTFW)Cuba also has sugar, and some other resources. But it doesn't have what Stalin and Venezuela had/have: a large land and mineral resource that can

1. allow it to be nearly self sufficient
2. allow it to export itself into a world power (or at least a player) and withstand an embargo[/b]

What you do say is partially the truth. However, just because Cuba does not have enough resources to become nearly self-sufficient and become totally capable enough to withstand an embargo does not mean that it could have not industrialized itself into a world economic player or that it can not industrialize itself into a world economic player under those conditions.

In fact, because Cuba received the iron ore, petroleum products, industrial machinery and coal necessary for industrialization via a constant stream of those resources from the U.S.S.R and the Eastern Block, during the time that the U.S.S.R actually existed and had a supportive relationship with Cuba, the industrial manufacturing industries of Cuba expanded from making total contribution of 23% to its Gross Domestic Product in 1959 to a number between 36% and 45.3% to its Gross Domestic Product during the 1980's, together with Argentina at that time, the second highest share that manufacturing had in any economy in Latin America.

If the U.S.S.R and the Eastern Block did not collapse and if the U.S blockade against Cuba was not further strengthened, it is very likely that Cuba would have become an industrialized country by 2010 and due to the massive growth that it was experiencing in its electronics manufacturing, automobile manufacturing, textile production, food processing, nickel processing, petroleum processing, arms manufacturing, mechanical production, iron & steel production, shoe production and beverage production, it would have likely become a significant world economic player by that time as well, despite the limitations that it would have suffered from a U.S blockade that was not tightened as much as it was after the collapse of the Eastern Block and the U.S.S.R. I would even go as far as to say that the size of the Cuban economy would have been somewhat comparable to that of Taiwan.


LOTFW
The list of materials you give have not been exploited to make them such a world player in the past 40 years.

What must be said about Cuba's situation as it relates to natural resources is that the majority of the natural resources that Cuba has were discovered after 1959 and that, due to certain types of inefficiencies that existed in the planning of Cuba's economy, the Cuban government were slow exploit them fully. That does not mean that this situation would have prevented Cuba from becoming a economic world player, although it would have helped to accelerate that process.

The reason for me saying that has to do with, once again, the importation of industrial machinery, iron ore, petroleum products and coal from the U.S.S.R and the Eastern Block, which compensated for the slow development of Cuba's own natural resources and thus, helped to further along its industrialization process, a process that was unfortunately interrupted by the collapse of the U.S.S.R and the Eastern Block.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 02:33 am

Are you saying that Stalin used capitalist methods?

That's exactly what I'm saying. And his obsession over insuring he stays in power as long as possible is the biggest strike against him.
That's completely illogical.

So if someone ensures their hold on power, they are capitalist? Wrong. I guess every feudal lord was a capitalist, since they held on to power, didn't they? Stalin did not use capitalist methods, he represented the bureaucracy. Look at material conditions before making an analysis.