Venezuela: The referendum defeat-What does it mean

[Guest1]

Venezuela: The referendum defeat - What does it mean?
By Alan Woods
Monday, 03 December 2007

At about 1am, after a long delay, the Venezuelan National Electoral Commission announced the results of the referendum on constitutional reform. The proposals for constitutional change were defeated by the narrowest of margins, with 4,504,354 votes against, (50.70%) and 4,379,392, (49.29%) for the YES. Soon afterwards, president Chávez was on the television accepting the results. He said that the proposed reforms had not been approved "for now", but that he would continue to struggle to build socialism.

The result, as could be expected, was greeted with jubilation by the right wing opposition and all the reactionary forces. For the first time in almost a decade they have secured a victory. There were scenes of jubilation in the well-off middle class areas of Caracas. "At last we have shown that Chavez can be defeated! At last the slide towards communism has been stopped! At last we have given the rabble a lesson!"

The joy of the reactionaries is both premature and exaggerated. A glance at the results shows that the voting strength of the opposition has barely increased. If you compare these results (after 88% of the votes had been counted) with the 2006 presidential elections, the opposition has only increased about 100,000 votes, but Chávez lost 2.8 million. These votes did not go to the opposition but rather to abstention. This means that support for the counter-revolution has not significantly increased from its highest point one year ago.

How the bourgeoisie "informs" public opinion

A whole number of factors contributed to this result. The bourgeoisie have in their hands powerful instruments for shaping public opinion. They organised a full mobilisation of the reactionary media in a hysterical campaign of lies and slander against Chavez, the Revolution and socialism. This scare-mongering campaign of the reactionary opposition undoubtedly had an effect on the more backward sections of the population.

The pressure was relentless. The Catholic Church, led by the reactionary Episcopal Conference, preached from the pulpits against Chavez and "godless communism". There was a two-page paid advertisement in Ultimas Noticias, one of the most widely read papers in Venezuela and the one that most Bolivarians read, amongst other things, claimed that the State would take your children away from you and they would belong to the State and that freedom of religion would be abolished.

In Carabobo, the regional newspaper Notitarde published a polling day front page headline that said, "Today you decide and it will be a decision forever" and just below a picture of an empty butcher's shop with a Cuban flag and a picture of Castro with the headline "this is how socialist Cuba looks today".

All this exposes the mendacious hypocrisy of the campaign in the international media to the effect that "there is no press freedom in Venezuela today". This noisy campaign reached a crescendo a few months ago when the government decided not to renew the license of RCTV, a right wing television station that was a notorious nest of counterrevolutionary conspirators who played a key role in the coup of April 2002.

The problem is not that the Revolution has limited the democratic rights of the opposition and trampled on "press freedom". The problem is that the Revolutin has been far too generous with its opponents, far too tolerant, far too patient, far too gentlemanly. It has left too much power in the hands of the oligarchy and its agents. It has placed a weapon in their hands which they are using very effectively to sabotage the revolution, halt it in its tracks and ultimately destroy it.

Abstentions

All this is true but it does not answer the question of why the "no" vote won. The main element in the equation was abstention: a large number of Chavistas did not bother to vote. The question must be asked: why did they not vote? The bureaucrats and middle class cynics will blame the masses for their alleged apathy. That is completely false. The masses have consistently voted for Chavez in every election and referendum. They voted massively last December. But now there are signs of tiredness. Why?

After all the talk about socialism, the oligarchy is still firmly entrenched and uses its wealth and power to sabotage and undermine the Revolution. The golpistas of 2002 are still at liberty. The right wing media are free to spew out lies and slanders against the Revolution. Peasant activists are murdered and nothing is done about it.

Despite the reforms of the government, which have undoubtedly helped the poor and disadvantaged, the majority still live in poverty. The problem of homelessness remains unsolved. The sabotage of the landlords and capitalist is causing shortages of basic products. All this has an effect on the morale of the masses.

The overwhelming majority of the masses still support Chavez and the Revolution, but there are clear symptoms of tiredness. After nine years of upheaval the masses are tired of words and speeches, parades and demonstrations, also of endless elections and referendums. They want less words and more decisive action: action against the landlords and capitalists, action against the corrupt governors and officials.

Above all, they want action against the Fifth Column of right wing Chavistas who wear red shirts and talk of socialism of the XXI century but are opposed to real socialism and are sabotaging the revolution from within. Unless the Bolivarian Movement and the PSUV is purged of these reformist bureaucrats and careerists, nothing can be done.

The Fifth Column

The bureaucrats once again showed their complete inability to organize a serious mass campaign. They failed to answer the lies of the opposition. They failed to explain the many points in the reformed constitution that would have benefited the working class, such as the 36 hour week. How could they, when they themselves are opposed to such socialist measures? This sabotage by the Fifth Column is well known to the rank and file of the Movement - and also to its enemies. Time magazine sneered:

"Even some of Chávez's allies want to put the brakes on the President's radical train. Many reform proposals, they argue, are less about empowering the people than about concentrating power in the hands of Chávez. Among the initiatives: eliminating presidential term limits; putting the now autonomous Central Bank under the President's control; and the creation of regional vice presidents. Provincial leaders like Ramón Martínez, Governor of eastern Sucre state and himself a socialist, consider the latter idea a lavish centralization of federal authority, as well as a betrayal of Chávez's Bolivarian Revolution (named for South America's 19th-century independence hero, Simon Bolivar). "This revolution was supposed to create more pluralism in Venezuela," says Martinez. "We don't want a megastate like the Soviet Union."

Anyone who reads these lines will immediately understand why there was no serious campaign. Ramón Martínez is not a socialist but a leader of Podemos, those renegades who split from the Bolivarian Movement on the eve of the referendum campaign in order to wage a violent campaign for the "no" vote. His conduct should surprise nobody. But it was not an isolated case. In Apure the governor did nothing to organize the campaign and many others behaved in a similar fashion. The bureaucrats merely repeated the same disastrous and empty campaign they organized one year ago in the Presidential election.

A comrade in Mérida described it in this way: "It was a stupid campaign in which the posters only said that if you voted for Chávez it was out of "love", while the campaign of the right wing was vicious. They said that everything would be taken away from people, that if you had two houses one was going to be taken away, if you had two cars, one was going to be taken away, that new-born children were going to be taken away by the "socialist" state".

After the result was announced there was a live phone-in show on RNV, one of the state radio stations, and most of the callers blamed the bureaucracy for the lack of campaigning for the YES. Many mentioned the attitude of "Chavista" governors and mayors who not only did not organise any campaign, but actively sabotaged it. These bureaucrats feared the passing of these reforms as much as the opposition did. They correctly saw that the masses would view this referendum as part of a long overdue settling of accounts not only with the ruling class, but also against the reformist and bureaucratic elements within the leadership of the Bolivarian movement.

Baduel's tactics

The declarations of the opposition after the result was announced were highly significant. The first speaker was one of the leaders of the reactionary students. In third place was Rosales, the opposition candidate for President who lost heavily to Chavez last December. But the second speaker was none other than General Baduel, the former Minister of Defence of whom we have written recently.

What did Baduel say? He spoke of national reconciliation and offered to negotiate with Chavez. He renounced all intentions to organize a coup. In short he offered a smiling face and the hand of friendship. This is quite a clever tactic and confirms our impression of Baduel that he is a clever counterrevolutionary. This new tactic of the opposition also reflects the real balance of forces, which is, despite the referendum result, is still very unfavourable to the counterrevolutionaries.

The Revolution should place no trust whatsoever in the smiling face of the Counterrevolution. Remember the words of Shakespeare: "there are daggers in men's smiles"! The offer of reconciliation is a trap. There can be no reconciliation between Revolution and Counterrevolution because there can be no reconciliation between rich and poor, exploiters and exploited.

The only reason for this change of tactic is that the opposition cannot defeat Chávez by direct action. They are too weak and they know it. The more stupid elements among the opposition are now drunk with success. But after a night of drunken euphoria will come a morning with a bad headache. The "victory" was won by the narrowest margin. The greatest exertions of the opposition only succeeded in mobilizing about 100,000 more votes. Moreover, this struggle cannot be won with votes alone.

The pot-bellied bourgeois and his wife and children, the small shopkeeper, the student "spoilt brats of the rich", the government clerks, resentful of the advances of the "rabble", the pensioners nostalgic of the "good old days" of the Fourth Republic, the speculators, thieves and swindlers, the devout old ladies of both sexes manipulated by the reactionary hierarchy of the Church, the solid middle class citizens tired of "anarchy": all these elements appear as a formidable force in electoral terms, but in the class struggle their weight is practically zero.

The class balance of forces

The real balance of class forces was shown by the rallies at the end of the referendum campaign. As in December 2006, the opposition moved heaven and earth to mobilize its mass base and succeeded in assembling a large crowd. However, the next day the streets of central Caracas were flooded by a sea of red shirts and banners. The two rallies revealed that the active base of the Chavistas is five or eight times bigger than that of the opposition.

The picture is even clearer when it comes to the youth. The right wing students are the storm troops of the opposition. They have been the main force organizing violent provocations against the Chavistas. They got 50,000 at their biggest rally, on the most optimistic estimate. But the Chavista students had 200,000 or 300,000 on their rally. In this decisive area of struggle - the youth - the active forces of the Revolution greatly outnumber those of the Counterrevolution.

On the side of the Revolution stand the overwhelming majority of the workers and peasants. This is the decisive question! Not a light bulb shines, not a wheel turns, not a telephone rings without the permission of the working class. This is a colossal force once it is organized and mobilized for the socialist transformation of society.

And the army? What about the army? Reformists like Heinz Dieterich are always harping on this theme like a repeating groove on an old gramophone record. Yes, the army is a decisive question. But the army always reflects the tendencies within society. The Venezuelan army has lived through almost a decade of revolutionary storm and stress. This has left its mark!

There can be no doubt that the overwhelming majority of the ordinary soldiers, sons of workers and peasants, are loyal to Chavez and the Revolution. The same will be true of most of the sergeants and other non-commissioned officers and the junior officers. But the higher we go in the upper echelons the more unclear the situation becomes. In the last few weeks there were rumours of conspiracies and some officers were arrested. This is a serious warning!

Among the officers, many will be loyal to Chavez; others will be sympathetic to the opposition or secret counterrevolutionaries. Most will probably be apolitical career soldiers, whose sympathies can incline one way or another depending on the general climate in society.

The fact that General Baduel has decided to adopt a cautious and conciliatory tone shows that there is no serious base for a coup at the present time. The serious counterrevolutionaries (including their CIA advisers) realise that the time is not yet ripe for an operation like that of April 2002. Why not? Because any attempt to launch a coup at this stage would bring the masses onto the streets ready to fight and die if necessary to defend the Revolution.

Under such circumstances the Venezuelan army as it is at present would be a most unreliable instrument for a coup. It would lead to a civil war which the counterrevolutionaries would not be confident of winning. And who can doubt that this time a defeat of the counterrevolution in open struggle would mean the immediate liquidation of capitalism in Venezuela.

It is for these practical considerations that Baduel is taking the position that he is taking. In effect he is playing for time, hoping that the objective conditions will change to the advantage of the counterrevolution and the disadvantage of the revolution. One must admit that these calculations are correct. Time is not on the side of the revolution!

Pernicious role of sects

Baduel is now arguing for the convening of a constituent assembly. This is, ironically, the very same demand that is being put forward by the Argentinean PO and other ultra left sectarians. The ultra-lefts already found themselves agitating in the company of the Counterrevolution in the referendum campaign, so this should not be a great surprise.

The role of Orlando Chirino and other so-called "Trotskyists" who called on people to spoil the ballot papers was absolutely pernicious. These ladies and gentlemen are so blinded by their hatred of Chavez that they are no longer capable of understanding the difference between revolution and counterrevolution. This writes them off entirely as a progressive force, let alone a revolutionary one. But let the dead bury their dead.

The counterrevolutionaries and imperialists understand the situation far more clearly than the sectarian clowns and half-wits. The masses have been aroused to political life by Chavez and are fiercely loyal to him. The bourgeoisie have tried everything to remove Chavez but have failed. Each counterrevolutionary attempt has been shattered on the rock of the mass movement.

They have therefore decided to arm themselves with patience and play a waiting game. Chavez has been elected for six years and therefore has five more years to run. The first step of the bourgeoisie was to ensure that he cannot stand for election after that. That was the importance of this referendum from their point of view. They calculate that if they can get rid of Chavez one way or the other the Movement will split in pieces and disintegrate, allowing them to take power back into their hands.

The opposition is cautious because it is aware of its weakness. It knows it is not strong enough to go on the offensive. But on the basis of "national accord", it is trying to get Chavez to water down his programme. If they succeed in this it will demoralise the Chavista rank and file, while the reformists and bureaucrats will feel strengthened

It is an intelligent tactic, but there is a problem. Despite the referendum result, they are stuck with Chavez till 2012-13 and no other important elections are on the horizon. In a situation like Venezuela many things can happen in five years. That is why they want a constituent assembly. If they can win another referendum they will change the constitution to permit early elections which they hope they can win - probably with Baduel as their candidate.

Why are they so confident they can win? Because the Revolution has not been carried out to the end: because important economic levers have been left in the hands of the bitterest enemies of the Revolution, and also because there is a limit to how much the masses can tolerate without falling into moods of apathy and despair.

Decisive measures needed!

Some years ago, in May 2004, I wrote an article called Theses on Revolution and counter-revolution in Venezuela (http://www.marxist.com/theses-counterrevolution-venezuela1-5.htm) in which I wrote the following:

"To rely exclusively on the willingness of the masses to make sacrifices is a mistake. The masses can sacrifice their today for their tomorrow only up to a certain point. This must always be kept in mind. Ultimately, the economic question is decisive."

These observation today retain their full force. In his article dated Tuesday, 27 November 2007, Erik Demeester quoted figures from a recent report from Datanalisis (1) [the Venezuelan statistical service], which revealed what already many people knew: scarcity of basic foodstuffs is becoming intolerable. This study established that milk, beef and sugar have become very difficult to find. Other products like chicken, cooking oil, cheese, sardines and black beans are also very scarce. The analysts who compiled the report interviewed 800 people in some 60 different shops, supermarkets and markets, both in the private sector and the public distribution network, Mercal. 73.3% of the places visited had no milk powder for sale. 51.7% no longer had refined sugar, 40% had no cooking oil, and 26.7% no black beans, a basic staple in Venezuela.

Two thirds of the shoppers declared that they experienced food scarcity to one degree or another in the shops where they usually buy. Queues of a few hours, sometimes up to four hours, to buy some milk are no longer the exception. As comrade Demeester points out, this is reminiscent of the situation in Chile when wholesale economic sabotage was used against the left-wing Popular Unity government of the 1970s.

For the masses the question of socialism and revolution is not an abstract question but is very concrete indeed. The workers and peasants of Venezuela have been extraordinarily loyal to the Revolution. They have shown a high degree of revolutionary maturity and willingness to fight and make sacrifices. But if the situation drags on for too long without a decisive break, the masses will start to tire. Beginning with the most backward and most inert layers, a mood of apathy and scepticism will set in.

If there is no clear end in sight, they will begin to say: we have heard all these speeches before, but nothing fundamental has changed. What is the point in demonstrating? What is the point in voting, if we live much the same as before? This is the biggest danger for the Revolution. When the reactionaries see that the revolutionary tide is ebbing they will pass over to the counteroffensive. The advanced elements of the workers will find themselves isolated. The masses will no longer respond to their appeals. When that moment arrives the counterrevolution will strike.

Those who argue that the Revolution has gone too far too fast, that it is necessary to call a halt to the expropriations and reach a compromise with Baduel to save the Revolution are completely mistaken. The reason why a section of the masses are becoming disillusioned is not because the Revolution has gone too far too fast, but because it is too slow and has not gone far enough.

The growing scarcity of basic products and inflation, affects mainly the working class areas, which are the basis of Chavismo. It is this that is undermining the Revolution, and not "going too far". You cannot make half a revolution. If we accept the advice of reformists of the Heinz Dieterich school, we will surely destroy the Revolution. We would be acting like a man sitting on the branch of a tree and sawing the branch on which he is sitting.

Elections and the class struggle

Marxists do not refuse to participate in elections. That is the position of anarchism, not Marxism. In general, the working class must utilise every democratic opening that is available to assemble its forces, to conquer one position after another from the class enemy and to prepare for the conquest of power.

The electoral struggle has played an important role in Venezuela in uniting, organizing and mobilising the masses. But it has its limits. The class struggle cannot be reduced to abstract statistics or electoral arithmetic. Nor is the fate of a revolution determined by laws or constitutions. Revolutions are won or lost not in lawyer's chambers or in parliamentary debates but on the streets, in the factories, in the villages and poor districts, in the schools and army barracks. We ignore this fact at our peril.

The reformists believe that the working class must always observe the legal niceties. But long ago Cicero said: Salus populi suprema est lex ("The good of the People is the Supreme Law". We might add: the Good of the Revolution is the Supreme Law. The counterrevolutionaries showed absolutely no respect for the law or the Constitution in 2002 and if they had succeeded they would have abolished the 1999 Constitution immediately. Yet now they are all shouting about the defence of that very same Constitution.

Even after the defeat in the referendum, Chavez has enough powers to carry out the expropriation of the landlords, bankers and capitalists. He has control of the National Assembly and the support of the decisive sections of Venezuelan society. An enabling act to expropriate the land, banks and big private enterprises would provoke enthusiastic support among the masses.

The level of abstentions that handed this narrow victory to the opposition is a warning. The masses are demanding decisive action not words! It may be that this defeat will have the opposite effect. It can rouse the masses to new levels of revolutionary struggle. Marx said the revolution needs the whip of counterrevolution. We have seen this more than once in the last nine years in Venezuela.

You cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs and you cannot win a fight with one arm tied behind your back. A revolution is not a game of chess with clearly defined rules. It is a fight between mutually antagonistic and irreconcilable class interests. Decisive measures are necessary to defend the Revolution and disarm the Counterrevolution.

The victory of the "no" in the referendum will act as a salutary shock. The Chavistas rank and file is furious and blame the bureaucracy, which they rightly blame for the setback. They are demanding action to purge the right wing from the Movement. That is absolutely necessary! Our slogans must be:

No retreat! No deals with the opposition!

Carry the Revolution forward!

Kick out the bureaucrats and careerists!

Expropriate the oligarchy!

Arm the working people to fight against reaction!

Long live Socialism!

London, December 3, 2007

[bootleg42]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 03, 2007 09:23 pm
The problem is not that the Revolution has limited the democratic rights of the opposition and trampled on "press freedom". The problem is that the Revolutin has been far too generous with its opponents, far too tolerant, far too patient, far too gentlemanly. It has left too much power in the hands of the oligarchy and its agents. It has placed a weapon in their hands which they are using very effectively to sabotage the revolution, halt it in its tracks and ultimately destroy it.




The bureaucrats once again showed their complete inability to organize a serious mass campaign. They failed to answer the lies of the opposition. They failed to explain the many points in the reformed constitution that would have benefited the working class, such as the 36 hour week. How could they, when they themselves are opposed to such socialist measures? This sabotage by the Fifth Column is well known to the rank and file of the Movement - and also to its enemies. Time magazine sneered:

"Even some of Chávez's allies want to put the brakes on the President's radical train. Many reform proposals, they argue, are less about empowering the people than about concentrating power in the hands of Chávez. Among the initiatives: eliminating presidential term limits; putting the now autonomous Central Bank under the President's control; and the creation of regional vice presidents. Provincial leaders like Ramón Martínez, Governor of eastern Sucre state and himself a socialist, consider the latter idea a lavish centralization of federal authority, as well as a betrayal of Chávez's Bolivarian Revolution (named for South America's 19th-century independence hero, Simon Bolivar). "This revolution was supposed to create more pluralism in Venezuela," says Martinez. "We don't want a megastate like the Soviet Union."

Anyone who reads these lines will immediately understand why there was no serious campaign. Ramón Martínez is not a socialist but a leader of Podemos, those renegades who split from the Bolivarian Movement on the eve of the referendum campaign in order to wage a violent campaign for the "no" vote. His conduct should surprise nobody. But it was not an isolated case. In Apure the governor did nothing to organize the campaign and many others behaved in a similar fashion. The bureaucrats merely repeated the same disastrous and empty campaign they organized one year ago in the Presidential election.


These are the BIG and IMPORTANT POINTS up there^^^^^^

Also Alan Woods has been warning the revolution of the "fifth column" for some time now.

Excellent article.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Brilliant article. As usual, Alan Woods hit the nail on the head. The people are tired of this kind of socialism at a snail's pace. Constitutional revisions or no revisions, Chavez still has the power to nationalize the means of production, and he must do so immediately on a large scale.

The counterrevolution seems to have reconciled itself to social democracy and appears to be making every effort to persuade Chavez to settle for "capitalism with a human face." This new tactic has to be resisted at all costs.

[YSR]

Why is this so surprising?

Being a proud "ultra-leftist," I'll point out the working class could take the means of production in Venezuela or anywhere, if they wanted to.

The problem is, and will continue to be, Chavez.

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 11:22 pm
Why is this so surprising?

Being a proud "ultra-leftist," I'll point out the working class could take the means of production in Venezuela or anywhere, if they wanted to.

The problem is, and will continue to be, Chavez.
And if you said that to a Venezuelan worker, you would instantly be branded as a supporter of the opposition. All ultra-lefts do is concentrate on the ought instead of the is. Ultra-lefts will never gain a revolutionary echo because they always cut themselves off from the working class. You have to fight shoulder to shoulder with the working class, patiently explaining things along the way, not stand around on the sidelines whining about how the ought is not taking place (Alan Woods correctly pointed out in the past that this focus on the ought instead of the is amounts to Kantian Idealism!).

The bulk of the left has abandoned materialism for mystical idealist rubble. Thankfully, there are some materialists left to rebuild the movement.

The central weakness is the absence of leadership capable of giving a far-sighted lead to the process. The only large scale revolution that overthrew capitalism and introduced workers' democracy had a far-sighted leadership to it.

Belittling the role of the leadership amounts to advocating the opposition to the most advanced elements of the struggle and bowing to spontaneity.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by Axel1917+December 04, 2007 05:31 am--> (Axel1917 @ December 04, 2007 05:31 am)
[email protected] 03, 2007 11:22 pm
Why is this so surprising?

Being a proud "ultra-leftist," I'll point out the working class could take the means of production in Venezuela or anywhere, if they wanted to.

The problem is, and will continue to be, Chavez.
And if you said that to a Venezuelan worker, you would instantly be branded as a supporter of the opposition. All ultra-lefts do is concentrate on the ought instead of the is. Ultra-lefts will never gain a revolutionary echo because they always cut themselves off from the working class. You have to fight shoulder to shoulder with the working class, patiently explaining things along the way, not stand around on the sidelines whining about how the ought is not taking place (Alan Woods correctly pointed out in the past that this focus on the ought instead of the is amounts to Kantian Idealism!).

The bulk of the left has abandoned materialism for mystical idealist rubble. Thankfully, there are some materialists left to rebuild the movement.

The central weakness is the absence of leadership capable of giving a far-sighted lead to the process. The only large scale revolution that overthrew capitalism and introduced workers' democracy had a far-sighted leadership to it.

Belittling the role of the leadership amounts to advocating the opposition to the most advanced elements of the struggle and bowing to spontaneity. [/b]
lol, if you think the "bulk of the left" abandoned supporting chavez you have no idea about the left.

Most Communists support Chavez.

I think its really easy to make sweeping statements about certain things happening. The world is a filthy place, and communist theory is both aimed at certain principles, but at the same time, at the practical.

Communists should try to push further until the means of production are siezed by the workers themselves, However, in the streets, I would go to the side of the chavistas rather than the side of the reactionary opposition, and inside that side, try to push the movement towards revolution.

Every revolutionary organization has done this. The Bolsheviks were part of the Socialist Revolutionaries until they realized it was time to part away. Same with the spartacus league.

However, I think it is a little disgusting how some trotskyists place so much hope in the elections.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Axel1917+December 04, 2007 05:31 am--> (Axel1917 @ December 04, 2007 05:31 am)
[email protected] 03, 2007 11:22 pm

The problem is, and will continue to be, Chavez.
And if you said that to a Venezuelan worker, you would instantly be branded as a supporter of the opposition. [/b]
The working class in Venezuela didn't turn out to vote for Chavez:


Preliminary studies indicated that the NO won overwhelmingly in rich
and upper middle class areas and the YES in the poorest urban areas.
But the NO and YES fared badly in median income working class areas
where the abstention carried the day. Meanwhile the NO vote fared
very well in the relatively privileged labour aristocracy (oil workers,
for example) and peasant vote in small communities in the provinces.
The YES vote encountered many problems among youth.

Source: http://www.izquierda.info/modules.php?name...rticle&sid=4960 (http://www.izquierda.info/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4960)

I would see that there is some connection between this, and the fact that the working class (not the urban poor) has been made poorer under Chavez.

Basically, the working class didn't turn out to support the so-called Bolivarian revolution because it offers nothing to them.

Devrim

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by Marmot+December 03, 2007 11:48 pm--> (Marmot @ December 03, 2007 11:48 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 05:31 am

[email protected] 03, 2007 11:22 pm
Why is this so surprising?

Being a proud "ultra-leftist," I'll point out the working class could take the means of production in Venezuela or anywhere, if they wanted to.

The problem is, and will continue to be, Chavez.
And if you said that to a Venezuelan worker, you would instantly be branded as a supporter of the opposition. All ultra-lefts do is concentrate on the ought instead of the is. Ultra-lefts will never gain a revolutionary echo because they always cut themselves off from the working class. You have to fight shoulder to shoulder with the working class, patiently explaining things along the way, not stand around on the sidelines whining about how the ought is not taking place (Alan Woods correctly pointed out in the past that this focus on the ought instead of the is amounts to Kantian Idealism!).

The bulk of the left has abandoned materialism for mystical idealist rubble. Thankfully, there are some materialists left to rebuild the movement.

The central weakness is the absence of leadership capable of giving a far-sighted lead to the process. The only large scale revolution that overthrew capitalism and introduced workers' democracy had a far-sighted leadership to it.

Belittling the role of the leadership amounts to advocating the opposition to the most advanced elements of the struggle and bowing to spontaneity.
lol, if you think the "bulk of the left" abandoned supporting chavez you have no idea about the left.

Most Communists support Chavez.

I think its really easy to make sweeping statements about certain things happening. The world is a filthy place, and communist theory is both aimed at certain principles, but at the same time, at the practical.

Communists should try to push further until the means of production are siezed by the workers themselves, However, in the streets, I would go to the side of the chavistas rather than the side of the reactionary opposition, and inside that side, try to push the movement towards revolution.

Every revolutionary organization has done this. The Bolsheviks were part of the Socialist Revolutionaries until they realized it was time to part away. Same with the spartacus league.

However, I think it is a little disgusting how some trotskyists place so much hope in the elections. [/b]
By "the bulk of the left," I meant the ultra-left types floating around all over the globe, not the people in Venezuela supporting Chavez.

If Chavez did not have support from the bulk of the working class, another coup would have removed him already.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 06:42 am
If Chavez did not have support from the bulk of the working class, another coup would have removed him already.
If the working class was benefiting so much from the 'Bolivarian revolution' why didn't it turn out to vote for it?

Devrim

[Herman]

If the working class was benefiting so much from the 'Bolivarian revolution' why didn't it turn out to vote for it?

It has only been this case. And as someone already pointed out, bureaucrats and leaders failed to explain properly article by article how the workers would be affected by it (the former did not wish the victory, while the latter did want the constitution to be approved, but miserably failed to do so).

The constitution would have improved the worker's rights and increased their power substantially. Had the consitution passed, it would have allowed workers to easily occupy factories and turn them in cooperatives (while at the same time transforming it into the so called "collective property", that is, that the communal council closest to the factory would have had some say in what was produced).

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 08:24 am

If the working class was benefiting so much from the 'Bolivarian revolution' why didn't it turn out to vote for it?

It has only been this case. And as someone already pointed out, bureaucrats and leaders failed to explain properly article by article how the workers would be affected by it (the former did not wish the victory, while the latter did want the constitution to be approved, but miserably failed to do so).

Hang on, I thought you lot were saying that there was some sort of workers' revolution going on here. Now you are saying that this needs to be explained to workers.

I don't buy it.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 08:24 am
The constitution would have improved the worker's rights and increased their power substantially. Had the consitution passed, it would have allowed workers to easily occupy factories and turn them in cooperatives (while at the same time transforming it into the so called "collective property", that is, that the communal council closest to the factory would have had some say in what was produced).
Maybe they were cynical about all of this talk about a six hour day. After all despite all its socialist rhetoric, under Chavez's regime working class living standards have continued to fall.

The stuff about collective property is laughable.

Devrim

[Herman]

Hang on, I thought you lot were saying that there was some sort of workers' revolution going on here. Now you are saying that this needs to be explained to workers.

I don't buy it.

No, this is not an ultra-leftist worker's revolution you dream about every day Devrim.

Of course "things" like the constitution have to be explained to the workers and the poor. It's the same thing you do to any worker who isn't class conscious. You explain how it is in their interests to defeat capitalism and break the old relations of production. Or do you believe in spontaneous revolution?


Maybe they were cynical about all of this talk about a six hour day. After all despite all its socialist rhetoric, under Chavez's regime working class living standards have continued to fall.

Have they? Have they really? Perhaps you'd like to mention your source so I can verify it.


The stuff about collective property is laughable.

So you're against collective property then? Thanks for showing me how "communist" you are.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 08:39 am

Hang on, I thought you lot were saying that there was some sort of workers' revolution going on here. Now you are saying that this needs to be explained to workers.

I don't buy it.

No, this is not an ultra-leftist worker's revolution you dream about every day Devrim.

Yes, it is not a workers' revolution.


So you're against collective property then? Thanks for showing me how "communist" you are.

As a communist I am against property, collective or otherwise.

I suspect though that theis 'collective property' will be about as socialist as the PO.


Have they? Have they really? Perhaps you'd like to mention your source so I can verify it.

Yes, I will come back to this tonight. I am off to work soon.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Herman+December 04, 2007 08:39 am--> (Herman @ December 04, 2007 08:39 am) Have they? Have they really? Perhaps you'd like to mention your source so I can verify it.
[/b]
From a previous post. Links for sources are there:

Originally posted by Devrim+--> (Devrim)I read on another board quite a reasonable analysis of the economic situation in Venezuela:


Originally posted by Joseph K.

[email protected]
Interestingly (for a retirement website), a very nice income breakdown by class can be found here:

http://www.bulletproofretirement.com/public/274.cfm?sd=2

Their analysis states that:


For Social Class E, they've seen their household income go from 437,613 Bolivares per month in 2004 to 680,419 Bolivares per month in the first quarter of 2006. Likewise, for Social Class D, their household income rose from 768,333 per month to 890,990 per month, and the lower half of Class C saw it's income rise from 1,415,099 in 2004 to 1,765,000.

(see the original text for their lettered class category definitions)

those figures don't look like they're inflation-adjusted (it doesn't say they are which is standard practice when giving 'real terms' figures not actual ones). so a few sums: (edited to fix denominators, results only minorly different, same conclusions)

Inflation was estimated at 16% in 2005<fn> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Venezuela </fn> and 18.3% in January this year<fn> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6364515.stm </fn>, so i&#39;ll take 17% as an average.

Social Class E (58% population; "the extreme poor")
437,613 Bs (2004) x 1.17² = 599,048 Bs (2006)

680,419 - 599,048 (i.e. the real terms change)
----------------------- x 100 = +13.6%
599,048 (i.e. the base year figure at present value)

Social Class D (23% population; "the working class or the &#39;working poor&#39;")
768,333 Bs (2004) x 1.17² = 1,051,771 Bs (2006)

890,990 - 1,051,771
------------------------ x 100 = -15.3%
1,051,771

Social Class C (~16% population; "the middle class")
1,415,099 Bs (2004) x 1.17² = 1,937,129 Bs (2006)

1,765,000 - 1,937,129
-------------------------- x 100 = -8.9%
1,937,129

There&#39;s no stats on the upper classes proper, so assuming the veracity of these statistics the poor majority are clearly better off in real terms, though this may be at the expense of the middle (working poor and lower middle class) or both the middle and top, without class A/B data we can&#39;t be sure.

A few more caveats;

(i) inflation is calculated on a &#39;basket of goods&#39;, if it contains imported consumer goods and the like whose prices are relatively stable, this could mask a higher rise in basic provisions (i.e. real terms inflation for the poor could outstrip the headline measure). again, we don&#39;t know, but this is a common problem, and Chavez has been talking of nationalising shops who ignore price caps and raise prices on basic foodstuffs<fn> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6364515.stm </fn>, so this is likely a problem, which means the real-terms increase in the poor&#39;s income would be somewhere below the +18.5% calculated above.

(ii) GDP growth is running at around 9.3% p/a<fn> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Venezuela - this doesn&#39;t include the black economy which is significant in venezuela, so all sums with GDP involved are very provisional, but nonetheless indicative because GDP does include oil revenues, the major source of recent &#39;growth&#39;.</fn>, so it would be a reasonable approximation to take across-the-board income increases of 9.3% per year (19.5% compounded over two years) as a base expectation if everyone is sharing equally in economic growth - which is fuelled mostly by high oil prices (i.e. derived from oil rents) - roughly a third of GDP is petroleum-related and so is half of all state revenue.

Some provisional conclusions:

The income growth of the poorest 58% was outstripped by GDP growth by somewhere more than 5.9% (19.5%- lessthan13.6%), meaning their relative share of national wealth actually fell. however, there was a real-terms absolute increase in income of somewhere lessthan13.6%.

The (negative) income growth of the working poor (23% of population) was outstripped by GDP growth by around 34.8%, meaning their relative share of national wealth fell dramatically. They also suffered an absolute real-terms fall in income of around 15.3%.

The (negative) income growth of the lower middle class (16%) was outstripped by GDP growth by around 28.4%, meaning their relative share of national wealth fell. Their absolute real-terms incomes also fell by 8.9%.

Therefore, while the absolute incomes of the poor majority have risen by lessthan13.6% (whilst falling by greaterthan5.9% relative to GDP), the relative share of national wealth of 97% of the population has actually fallen by 16%<fn>Edit: i was half a percent out because of a methodological error (took 97% of the population as 100%). I think it&#39;s right now, i&#39;m doing this looking over my shoulder in the office :bb:. the left bits with numbers above and below ----- are divisions. )

0.58
(----- x -5.9) +
0.97

0.23
(----- x -34.8) +
0.97

0.16
(----- x -28.4)
0.97

= -16.5%

</fn>, meaning that the oil-rent bonanza of high oil prices is fuelling a concentration of wealth in the country&#39;s richest 3%. Furthermore, the incomes of the &#39;working poor&#39; have fallen by 15.3% in real terms and 34.8% relative to national wealth, and this in a growing economy where the richest 3% are accruing the lions share of the gains, meaning there is a clear basis for class demands/strike action etc against this attack on venezuelan workers.

note: the less than and greater than symbols fucks up the formatting as it&#39;s an open html tag, hence me writing &#39;lessthan&#39; and &#39;greaterthan&#39;

Also, in my opinion this is slightly flawed in that it takes inflation as an average of 17% when in fact it should be componded, and taken at 18.6% (this favours the pro-Chavez argument though. On a second point I would actually be very wary about believing the governments staistics on inflation to be anything like the reality experienced by workers. Anyone who lives in a high inflation economy will know immediatly what I mean.

Ok, let&#39;s look at what are (for those who couldn&#39;t be bothered to read), in my opinion, the most important conclusions here:


JosephK.
The income growth of the poorest 58% was outstripped by GDP growth by somewhere more than 5.9% (19.5%- lessthan13.6%), meaning their relative share of national wealth actually fell. however, there was a real-terms absolute increase in income of somewhere lessthan13.6%.

The (negative) income growth of the working poor (23% of population) was outstripped by GDP growth by around 34.8%, meaning their relative share of national wealth fell dramatically. They also suffered an absolute real-terms fall in income of around 15.3%...
meaning that the oil-rent bonanza of high oil prices is fuelling a concentration of wealth in the country&#39;s richest 3%. Furthermore, the incomes of the &#39;working poor&#39; have fallen by 15.3% in real terms and 34.8% relative to national wealth, and this in a growing economy where the richest 3% are accruing the lions share of the gains,

So the working class is under attack. The urban poor have benefited (but remember what I said about inflation earlier), but it has been paid for by attacking the working class, and lower middle class while the richest sectors of society have increased their share of the national wealth.

If this is your &#39;socialism&#39;, then you are welcome to it.[/b]

Devrim

[Guest1]

Actually, your stats are Golpist.

You&#39;re using a CIA-sponsored and spun stats reading which includes the mini depression of the bosses&#39; lockout and the sabotage of the oil industry in 2003.

If you just drop the depression cause by the counterrevolution, it shows that all the lower social classes, C, D and E, increased their incomes.

Sorry, the working class is making gains, they just need the return of milk through the launching of the mass expropriation of the capitalist class.

Changing Income Distribution in Venezuela: Sorting Out Data and Bias (http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/2794)

Next time, check more closely before using Gusano sources.

[Leo]

You&#39;re using a CIA-sponsored and spun stats reading which includes the mini depression of the bosses&#39; lockout and the sabotage of the oil industry in 2003.

All depressions, regardless of the political analysis of them, effect the economy and should be included in calculations and effect incomes. You can&#39;t drop them or their effect because you think it was caused by counter-revolutionaries. Economics does not deal with moral issues, it deals with material facts. Besides, even if the depression is not to be counted, real inflation value (based not on all goods but based on the prices of necessities) would eat up the values given for C-minus and D and even most of E. Regardless, the real biased decision economically, the real way to hide the actual situation is leaving what happened economically out, not including it&#33;

It&#39;s typical to blame the source when there&#39;s nothing else to say. Yes, it&#39;s all a big conspiracy :rolleyes:

[Herman]

Inflation was estimated at 16% in 2005<fn> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Venezuela

Yes, I wouldn&#39;t trust wikipedia, since it is an encyclopedia which anyone can change.


Interestingly (for a retirement website), a very nice income breakdown by class can be found here:

http://www.bulletproofretirement.com/public/274.cfm?sd=2

This source pretty much proves my point (though I can&#39;t seem to access this website of Datosir) (http://www.datosir.com/).


(i) inflation is calculated on a &#39;basket of goods&#39;, if it contains imported consumer goods and the like whose prices are relatively stable, this could mask a higher rise in basic provisions (i.e. real terms inflation for the poor could outstrip the headline measure). again, we don&#39;t know, but this is a common problem, and Chavez has been talking of nationalising shops who ignore price caps and raise prices on basic foodstuffs<fn> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6364515.stm </fn>, so this is likely a problem, which means the real-terms increase in the poor&#39;s income would be somewhere below the +18.5% calculated above.

(ii) GDP growth is running at around 9.3% p/a<fn> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Venezuela - this doesn&#39;t include the black economy which is significant in venezuela, so all sums with GDP involved are very provisional, but nonetheless indicative because GDP does include oil revenues, the major source of recent &#39;growth&#39;.</fn>, so it would be a reasonable approximation to take across-the-board income increases of 9.3% per year (19.5% compounded over two years) as a base expectation if everyone is sharing equally in economic growth - which is fuelled mostly by high oil prices (i.e. derived from oil rents) - roughly a third of GDP is petroleum-related and so is half of all state revenue.

Like I said, i&#39;m certainly not trusting wikipedia or the BBC (bourgeois mainstream media). Yes, inflation is high, caused by the overwhelming money that is being spent on social security, housing and the "misiones" in general. This is why there will be on the 1st of January a monetary reconversion of the "Bolivar" to "Bolivar fuerte", which will hopefully solve this problem.

Of course, i&#39;m not an economics expert and i&#39;m not going to try to debate your source in-depth (since I can&#39;t). So instead i&#39;ll leave you with some of my own sources:

Here&#39;s (http://www.gobiernoenlinea.ve/misc-view/sharedfiles/Logros_en_Materia_Economica2005.pdf) a report (in Spanish) on economic gains of the bolivarian revolution.

More (http://www.gobiernoenlinea.ve/misc-view/ver_indicadores.pag) indicators on govenrmental finances.

If you want to know oil prices, this can come useful. (http://www.mem.gob.ve/preciopetroleo/index.php)

This website (http://www.bcv.org.ve/c2/indicadores.asp) will give you access to a wealth of information on prices, salary, inflation, etc. Anything on economic matters you can simply search here (in Spanish again, sorry).

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 10:53 am

Inflation was estimated at 16% in 2005<fn> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Venezuela

Yes, I wouldn&#39;t trust wikipedia, since it is an encyclopedia which anyone can change.


No, I don&#39;t think that it is infallible. Interestingly though Britannica researchers found it to be as accurate as Britannica was. I would imagine the inflation figure is reasonable, though probably lower than real inflation as they tend to be.


Interestingly (for a retirement website), a very nice income breakdown by class can be found here:

http://www.bulletproofretirement.com/public/274.cfm?sd=2

This source pretty much proves my point. They are benefitting (though I can&#39;t seem to access this website of Datosir) (http://www.datosir.com/).

No they are not. It is not index linked. They are loosing.

Devrim

[Louis Pio]

I don&#39;t really know what your point is Dewrim but you again seem to be a bit cut of from reality, especially since you and Leo think the economic sabotage is not important, what&#39;s your point? That if the rightwing sabotages production we should do what? Cut off from the movement and declare the independent working class party (whatever that would be)? Of course there is no movement in your eyes

Actually looking from 2004 to 2007 Level E had shrunk dramatically, from 58% to 45.7% (extreme poor) but those remaining in E had an increase in household income of 42.3%, level D had grown 23% to 33.6% (working poor) while increasing household income 14.3%, all from Venezuelanalysis (http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/2794)

Of course im sure you can find some nice opposition sources to show otherwise. I dunno if all this numberjuggling is because of the "leftcommunist" support of what can be described as the former labour aristocracy in the oilsector, tied with the opposition, Leo sure was defending that lot quite a bit some time back.

Now the abstention is quite an important thing to discuss, but I don&#39;t really think you give any answers.
Other people have described quite well what is the cause of that so I won&#39;t go into it.

[Red Terror Doctor]

You guys are overlooking the major elitist Public Relations Firms (PR) that are at work in Venezuela. These firms are from AmeriKKKa with their "expertise" in manipulation and manufacturing consent. That election could have easily went the other way.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 04, 2007 06:25 am
All depressions, regardless of the political analysis of them, effect the economy and should be included in calculations and effect incomes. You can&#39;t drop them or their effect because you think it was caused by counter-revolutionaries. Economics does not deal with moral issues, it deals with material facts.
Yes, but if you want to find out if workers are gaining in income, you don&#39;t include outliers such as a one year depression started by coupsters. You start on a typical year.

If the incomes have actually been increasing since 2004, it&#39;s incredibly dishonest to include 2003 in the calculation in order to obscure that trend.

[Devrim]

Let&#39;s just look at the figures for level D. From 2004 to 2006 it gives an increase from 1,025,000B to 1,172,000B, an increase of 14%, which it claims is adjusted for inflation. Now, I live in a country, which has in the past suffered from high inflation, and I am almost certain that the inflation adjusted figures do not reflect the reality of inflation experienced by working class families. It would not at all surprise me if this 14% increase was actually a decrease in real terms. However, it should also be considered with the fact that in 2003 there was a clear decline in real income of the working class. Has this even balanced it out.


Originally posted by Teis+--> (Teis)Of course im sure you can find some nice opposition sources to show otherwise. I dunno if all this numberjuggling is because of the "leftcommunist" support of what can be described as the former labour aristocracy in the oilsector, tied with the opposition, Leo sure was defending that lot quite a bit some time back.[/b]

I have seen governments attack the &#39;labour aristocracy&#39; before. For example, the Thatcher government did it with the printers. It is undoubted that there were really attacks on the living conditions of workers in the oil sector. Please forgive my cynicism when people tell me it is good for the working class.


Originally posted by Teis+--> (Teis)again seem to be a bit cut of from reality, especially since you and Leo think the economic sabotage is not important, what&#39;s your point? That if the rightwing sabotages production we should do what? Cut off from the movement and declare the independent working class party (whatever that would be)? Of course there is no movement in your eyes[/b]

Again the state makes me very cynical when it uses &#39;socialist&#39; rhetoric to attack workers living standards.


Originally posted by Che y Marijuana
Yes, but if you want to find out if workers are gaining in income, you don&#39;t include outliers such as a one year depression started by coupsters. You start on a typical year.

Yes, let&#39;s take the year when the biggest attacks on working class living standards occur out of the statistics.


[email protected]
Now the abstention is quite an important thing to discuss, but I don&#39;t really think you give any answers.
Other people have described quite well what is the cause of that so I won&#39;t go into it.

It seems funny that if the working class have gained so much, that socialism is being built they didn&#39;t defend it. Maybe they are not gaining so much.


Red Terror Doctor
You guys are overlooking the major elitist Public Realtions Firms (PR) that are at work in Venezuela. These firms are from AmeriKKKa with their "expertise" in manipulation and manufacturing consent. That election could have easily went the other way.

So what you are suggesting is that a conscious working class in the middle of a &#39;revolution&#39; is convinced that it has taken the wrong course, and to drop the class interest where it had won these &#39;major improvements&#39; by a few adverts.

I am sorry if I seem doubtful.

Devrim

[YSR]

Originally posted by Axel1917
And if you said that [that the problem is Chavez] to a Venezuelan worker, you would instantly be branded as a supporter of the opposition.

Wait, this sounds an awful lot like mystical idealism to me.


The bulk of the left has abandoned materialism for mystical idealist rubble.

It doesn&#39;t matter what I&#39;d be "branded," it matters what is materially correct.


Ultra-lefts will never gain a revolutionary echo because they always cut themselves off from the working class. You have to fight shoulder to shoulder with the working class, patiently explaining things along the way, not stand around on the sidelines whining about how the ought is not taking place

This is basically the most pompous thing I&#39;ve ever heard from a non-Maoist. Do you think that ultra-leftists are all college professors or something?

As for the sidelines, naw, we&#39;ll be on the frontlines. Where we are right now. Getting shot at by Chavistas. http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?...071204032738238 (http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20071204032738238)

[Louis Pio]

I have seen governments attack the &#39;labour aristocracy&#39; before. For example, the Thatcher government did it with the printers. It is undoubted that there were really attacks on the living conditions of workers in the oil sector. Please forgive my cynicism when people tell me it is good for the working class.


Don&#39;t piss on the miners Dev, it is what you do with that comparison.

Now a "labour aristocracy" (not a big one though) that sides with the oligarchs and big business shouldn&#39;t be fought against? I have to admit I think you take this "workerism" so far down the road that you end up in the camp of reaction.
Which again of course comes from the fact that you think there really isn&#39;t anything extraordinary happening in Venezuela.

Edit: and I can see YSR has taken the same path, nice little camp you have there: rich college students, capitalists, oligarchs and a few disorientated "left communists" and "anarchists", what a great society your going to build.

[marxist_god]

Alan Woods is a smart scholar, i go a lot to http://www.marxist.com &#39;In Defense of Marxism&#39;. I like that page a lot more than http://www.wsws.org http://www.commondreams.org http://www.alternet.org and other websites which are progressive but not revolutionary like Alan Wood&#39;s page


marxist_god

[Herman]

Alan Woods knows his stuff. His analysis is entirely correct.

[Faceless]

This is basically the most pompous thing I&#39;ve ever heard from a non-Maoist. Do you think that ultra-leftists are all college professors or something?

As for the sidelines, naw, we&#39;ll be on the frontlines. Where we are right now. Getting shot at by Chavistas. http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?...071204032738238

lolz

can anyone say "agent provocateur"? If you want to know what really happened read the following:

http://www.handsoffvenezuela.org/violence_..._university.htm (http://www.handsoffvenezuela.org/violence_venezuela_university.htm)

these hardcore, proletarian "ultra-lefts" on the "frontlines" against Chavismo are nothing more than spoilt, right-wing student fascists using violent means and hired guns to stir up the maximum chaos. Call me pompous if you like but these young brats who to you represent the "frontlines" are coupist fascists. It is ironic but the ultra-lefts like yourself have been using the same slogans as the right-wing fascists who would like to organise a coup.

In my area certainly the only individuals I have met on the left who champion a "No" vote are middle-class students, academics and people who have no connection with the working class whatsoever. This is no coincidence. These ultra-left ideas come from a complete disconnection from the life of the working class. At least the right-wing coupists who have been calling for the "No" vote are (for the most part) intelligent class fighters (albeit for the capitalists). The "ultra-lefts" are more like a ship without a compass.

Excellent analysis by AW as usual.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 09:06 pm
Don&#39;t piss on the miners Dev, it is what you do with that comparison.

I didn&#39;t mention the miners. What I said was that the printers were accused of being a labour aristocracy. I don&#39;t know if you were around at the time, but the media threw all sort of nonsense at the printers about them being overpaid, being Luddites etc...

I don&#39;t think that it is an unfair comparison at all. Indeed when I see the state attacking workers for being over privileged, I am automatically cautious. You should be too.


Now a "labour aristocracy" (not a big one though) that sides with the oligarchs and big business shouldn&#39;t be fought against? I have to admit I think you take this "workerism" so far down the road that you end up in the camp of reaction.

I don&#39;t know much about the details. I am not particularly interested in Venezuela. As you say, I don&#39;t think there is a working class movement there.

Just looking at it very briefly from afar though there are two things that immediately strike me. First that so called &#39;Labour aristocracies&#39; are often the strongest sectors of the working class. Second that when the living conditions of this group are attacked people on the left are cheering. There were real attacks on living conditions.


Which again of course comes from the fact that you think there really isn&#39;t anything extraordinary happening in Venezuela.

Yes, I don&#39;t. I don&#39;t think that the working class can use the state to defend its living conditions or build socialism. I is interesting to see here that nobody is even questioning what is happening to working class living standards. They are all just posting up links to one site, which has a favourable analysis.


and I can see YSR has taken the same path, nice little camp you have there: rich college students, capitalists, oligarchs and a few disorientated "left communists" and "anarchists", what a great society your going to build.

This is classic Stalinist amalgamation.

Devrim

[YSR]

Originally posted by Teis
and I can see YSR has taken the same path, nice little camp you have there: rich college students, capitalists, oligarchs and a few disorientated "left communists" and "anarchists", what a great society your going to build.

"If you&#39;re not with us, you&#39;re against us&#33;"

The classic authoritarian turn of phrase.

Can any of you Chavez apologists answer this question: why didn&#39;t Chavez push for the progressive reforms, like the 6 hour day, without increasing his personal power? Oh, and if the answer is that he&#39;s the embodiment of the revolution or some such metaphysical nonsense, then I don&#39;t want to hear it. Seriously. Why couldn&#39;t Chavez just support the working class demands without throwing on all these "end of democracy" measures?

[Herman]

They are all just posting up links to one site, which has a favourable analysis.

As opposed to your links with an analysis which is disfavourable, so it must be true&#33; But I see your point too.


Can any of you Chavez apologists answer this question: why didn&#39;t Chavez push for the progressive reforms, like the 6 hour day, without increasing his personal power?

Personal power? What, so when there&#39;s an emergency which requires quick action, the president shouldn&#39;t be able to send the armed forces to help resolve the situation. So if there is a flood, he shouldn&#39;t be able to send help as quickly as possible?

Or maybe you&#39;re talking about the indefinite reelection? Nothing new, most European nations have the same thing.

Perhaps you&#39;re talking about the term increase, from 6 to 7 years? In that case, i&#39;d agree with you, it isn&#39;t necessary and it seems a tad suspect, but i&#39;m of the opinion that his positives outweigh the negatives.

And you call us Chavez apologists, as if Chavez was some evil dictator&#33; Really&#33; I suppose Chavez can shoot lasers from his eyes too and kill Chuck Norris in one hit: PEW PEW PEW.


"If you&#39;re not with us, you&#39;re against us&#33;"

The classic authoritarian turn of phrase.

Well, I don&#39;t know if that&#39;s what he actually tried to say, but I agree with you.


these hardcore, proletarian "ultra-lefts" on the "frontlines" against Chavismo are nothing more than spoilt, right-wing student fascists using violent means and hired guns to stir up the maximum chaos. Call me pompous if you like but these young brats who to you represent the "frontlines" are coupist fascists. It is ironic but the ultra-lefts like yourself have been using the same slogans as the right-wing fascists who would like to organise a coup.

A bit too much don&#39;t you think? I mean, personally I believe they are wrong, but that doesn&#39;t mean they&#39;re suddenly "coupists" or "facists". Let&#39;s try to keep this civil.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 08:12 am

They are all just posting up links to one site, which has a favourable analysis.

As opposed to your links with an analysis which is disfavourable, so it must be true&#33; But I see your point too.

Actually, the link that I quoted was being used in an argument by somebody backing Chavez, and somebody else looked at what it meant, in real terms.

You will always be able to find statistics to back up what you want to say.

For me though there are certainly things that happen in Venezuela that should make anybody weary. The attacks upon the oil workers is one example, and the fact that the working class didn&#39;t come out to vote is another.

Devrim

[Red Terror Doctor]

Without trying to disparage Venezuelas working class, I have to wonder what some of the workers thought Chavez&#39;s movement would bring them. Did some of the workers think that Chavez was going to bring capitalist consumerism?? That they would live in mansions or even middle class housing? When they saw the modest, though real, accomplishments they were probably dissapointed. They probably thought Chavez would bring them from the third world to the first world skipping the Second world stage.

Reminds me of the some of the people in the former Communist bloc. They wanted it all and now are left with almost nothing.

[Faceless]

A bit too much don&#39;t you think? I mean, personally I believe they are wrong, but that doesn&#39;t mean they&#39;re suddenly "coupists" or "facists". Let&#39;s try to keep this civil.

I personally disagree with them too, but these violent students really are the shock troops of the counter-revolution at the moment.

You try being civil with these brats when they are trying to burn down a building containing 150 people:

[img]http://www.handsoffvenezuela.org/images/stories/ucv/t_ucv_ap_captc64a7e45c2f1424d9ba3a4e6a60a66a7venez uela_protest_car112_876.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' class='attach' />

[img]http://www.handsoffvenezuela.org/images/stories/ucv/t_abn_07_11_2007_disturbiosucvviopo12_303.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' class='attach' />

It is testament to the utter confusion of the ultra-lefts like YSR that they can confuse the revolutionaries and the counter-revolutionaries.

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 10:42 pm
lolz

can anyone say "agent provocateur"? If you want to know what really happened read the following:

http://www.handsoffvenezuela.org/violence_..._university.htm (http://www.handsoffvenezuela.org/violence_venezuela_university.htm)
Wow, I never knew that. I was wondering what really happened in that "shooting incident". Thanks for linking to this.

This also casts an interesting light on Infoshop (and YSR by extension): these opposition students tried to destroy a haven of progressive thought and lynch the people inside. With the support of the boss of the university, who cares more about the counterrevolution than his own university. With the false flag "motorcycle attack", we see a combination of pure fascist tactics.

Speaking of which, interesting to see that Infoshop censored a comment on this article for not being anarchist. YSR still has no problems linking to it and referring to these fascists as "we." Of course, he ignores Faceless&#39;s posting of HoV&#39;s article and simply continues to prattle on about "Chávez apologists".

[marxist_god]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 09:42 pm

This is basically the most pompous thing I&#39;ve ever heard from a non-Maoist. Do you think that ultra-leftists are all college professors or something?

As for the sidelines, naw, we&#39;ll be on the frontlines. Where we are right now. Getting shot at by Chavistas. http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?...071204032738238

lolz

can anyone say "agent provocateur"? If you want to know what really happened read the following:

http://www.handsoffvenezuela.org/violence_..._university.htm (http://www.handsoffvenezuela.org/violence_venezuela_university.htm)

these hardcore, proletarian "ultra-lefts" on the "frontlines" against Chavismo are nothing more than spoilt, right-wing student fascists using violent means and hired guns to stir up the maximum chaos. Call me pompous if you like but these young brats who to you represent the "frontlines" are coupist fascists. It is ironic but the ultra-lefts like yourself have been using the same slogans as the right-wing fascists who would like to organise a coup.

In my area certainly the only individuals I have met on the left who champion a "No" vote are middle-class students, academics and people who have no connection with the working class whatsoever. This is no coincidence. These ultra-left ideas come from a complete disconnection from the life of the working class. At least the right-wing coupists who have been calling for the "No" vote are (for the most part) intelligent class fighters (albeit for the capitalists). The "ultra-lefts" are more like a ship without a compass.

Excellent analysis by AW as usual.


And you forgot one thing, most "leftists" that hate Chavez are egocentric, and self-absorved. I mean how can a leftist not like Chavez when Chavez&#39;s Government is offering the masses cheaper health care, cheaper phone services, subsidized food, cheaper Cable TV, and almost every thing in Venezuela is a lot cheaper than in other neoliberal countries, where things are real expensive.

Only a rich person doesn&#39;t care about free health care, but i would love to see in USA free or at least subsidized health care

marxist_god

[marxist_god]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 06:11 am
Can any of you Chavez apologists answer this question: why didn&#39;t Chavez push for the progressive reforms, like the 6 hour day, without increasing his personal power?

How is Chavez increasing his personal wealth and power? in fact Chavez is doing the opposite. He is de-centralizing the government, the concentrated-money in Venezuela, and shifting power from centralized sectors of Venezuela to communities. In fact Chavez even gave his salary away, his personal income is ZERO. By the way France, UK, and other countries have un-limited reelections. Un-limited re-elections is not a dictatorship. Dictatorial presidency would mean no elections at all, like USA for example which is a country that never has had an election, because of the fact that USA is not even a country, it is a mafia cartel of corporations with a Monarchy system

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 05:53 pm
And you forgot one thing, most "leftists" that hate Chavez are egocentric, and self-absorved. I mean how can a leftist not like Chavez when Chavez&#39;s Government is offering the masses cheaper health care, cheaper phone services, subsidized food, cheaper Cable TV, and almost every thing in Venezuela is a lot cheaper than in other neoliberal countries, where things are real expensive.

Only a rich person doesn&#39;t care about free health care, but i would love to see in USA free or at least subsidized health care

marxist_god
Indeed. It&#39;s no wonder that some people (like our brave censoring Infoshop admin) use "leftist" (often also "socialist", "communist", "marxist", "leninist" and "bolivarian") as political cursewords. Meanwhile, "anarchist", "anti-statist" and "libertarian" are used interchangeably. Class struggle becomes secondary to classless popular insurgency against "the state" or, for the more daring, "authoritarian regimes".

Edit: lol, just noticed the "worst communist leader" poll on Infoshop. Truly the WorldNetDaily of the left.

[marxist_god]

Originally posted by Van Binsbergen+December 05, 2007 05:29 pm--> (Van Binsbergen @ December 05, 2007 05:29 pm)
[email protected] 05, 2007 05:53 pm
And you forgot one thing, most "leftists" that hate Chavez are egocentric, and self-absorved. I mean how can a leftist not like Chavez when Chavez&#39;s Government is offering the masses cheaper health care, cheaper phone services, subsidized food, cheaper Cable TV, and almost every thing in Venezuela is a lot cheaper than in other neoliberal countries, where things are real expensive.

Only a rich person doesn&#39;t care about free health care, but i would love to see in USA free or at least subsidized health care

marxist_god
Indeed. It&#39;s no wonder that some people (like our brave censoring Infoshop admin) use "leftist" (often also "socialist", "communist", "marxist", "leninist" and "bolivarian") as political cursewords. Meanwhile, "anarchist", "anti-statist" and "libertarian" are used interchangeably. Class struggle becomes secondary to classless popular insurgency against "the state" or, for the more daring, "authoritarian regimes". [/b]


I think that the problem of anarchism is that it is anti-scientific. That&#39;s it, anarchism is utopianist dream, which aims at changing a country from capitalism to state-less communism in 1 day. And in real-life things dont&#39; change in 1 day. Anarchism fails to realize that there needs to be a transitorial stage composed of many years even hundres of years between capitalism and state-less communism, and that transitorial stage is *socialism* which requires a state, a government (And remember that anarchists are anti-government utopians), and to anarchists all governments are the same. They (anarchists) fail to differentiate a workers-state (socialism), and a capitalist-state (capitalism)


marxist_god

[marxist_god]

Originally posted by Red Terror [email protected] 05, 2007 02:40 pm
Without trying to disparage Venezuelas working class, I have to wonder what some of the workers thought Chavez&#39;s movement would bring them. Did some of the workers think that Chavez was going to bring capitalist consumerism?? That they would live in mansions or even middle class housing? When they saw the modest, though real, accomplishments they were probably dissapointed. They probably thought Chavez would bring them from the third world to the first world skipping the Second world stage.

Reminds me of the some of the people in the former Communist bloc. They wanted it all and now are left with almost nothing.


RedTerror doctor: I agree with you. Another thing is that Venezuela is a poor country, Latin America is a poor region. Venezuela it&#39;s still poor, and that poverty is caused by Francisco Pizarro, Hernan Cortes, Cristobal Colombus and most Spanish Conquerers who stole the Gold and resources of Latin South America regions and shipped it to Spain, thus making Latin America poor for 500 years. So Venezuelan workers fail to think historically as well, in that poverty has a lot of causes and Hugo Chavez and the Venezulean Government is not literally able to make all Venezuelans as rich as Americans or Europeans which are regions that have not experienced sacking by other nations. So they fail to think from an Immanuel Wallersteain "Depedency Theory" point of view in that poverty is caused also by Imperialist wars from another stronger country. And this is why Chavez is not able to make all Venezuelans like Europeans or like Americans with a lot of cars, tvs. big houses, etc. like americans have

marxist_god

[Wanted Man]

I don&#39;t even mind all anarchists. The anarcho-syndicalists and platformists at least have a more progressive tradition, even if they differ on Chávez, the Spanish Civil War or historical accounts of Bolshevism. But the ones who openly and unconditionally side with the counterrevolutionaries (who, as we saw in HoV&#39;s articles, staged a blatantly fascist attack on progressive students) can piss right off.

Herman says that it is not too "civil" to call them that. There isn&#39;t much time to be civil with the people who conduct terrorist attacks to serve the forces of reaction.

[YSR]

Originally posted by hands off venezuela
According to eyewitness reports from Hands Off Venezuela members...

I stopped reading here.

So hold on. You don&#39;t believe my sources that say it was a Chavista attack on a bunch of anarchists and I&#39;m not going to believe your sources that say it was a fascist attack on a Chavista community. Big fucking deal. Most of the argument about Venezuela seems to take on the question of whose sources are correct.

What this misses is the larger question, which is "Is a reformist &#39;revolution&#39; led by a single man truly the path to a communist society?" Of course, if you toned down the hype about Chavez, both from the bourgeois media and the Chavista media, this question would be easy to answer: No.

Interesting that the HOV article didn&#39;t show the pictures of masked men inside the building shooting at students outside. Those can be found here:
http://argentina.indymedia.org/news/2007/11/562981.php

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by YSR+December 05, 2007 08:19 pm--> (YSR @ December 05, 2007 08:19 pm)
hands off venezuela
According to eyewitness reports from Hands Off Venezuela members...

I stopped reading here.

So hold on. You don&#39;t believe my sources that say it was a Chavista attack on a bunch of anarchists and I&#39;m not going to believe your sources that say it was a fascist attack on a Chavista community. Big fucking deal. Most of the argument about Venezuela seems to take on the question of whose sources are correct. [/b]
Big fucking deal? I thought you were absolutely convinced that those mean Chavista ruffians were shooting at those poor wee anarchist students who just wanted to have a fuzzy non-violent protest. I thought "we" were right there at the frontlines being shot at by them. What exactly do you believe? It&#39;s kind of hard to take your posts seriously when it might just be an emotional appeal to something that has a whole lot of contradictory evidence.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 06:11 am
Can any of you Chavez apologists answer this question: why didn&#39;t Chavez push for the progressive reforms, like the 6 hour day, without increasing his personal power? Oh, and if the answer is that he&#39;s the embodiment of the revolution or some such metaphysical nonsense, then I don&#39;t want to hear it. Seriously. Why couldn&#39;t Chavez just support the working class demands without throwing on all these "end of democracy" measures?
He is the photocopy of contradictions that are inherent to the society that he lives in. He can be pushed for expropriation of certain industries due to the weakness of the left-bourgeois at the face of working class militancy, but he can also actively intervene to stop such expropriations due to the weakness of the rank-in-file at uncertain moments. The fact is that history does not revolve around his individual aspirations, but is modeled at a trajectory in the class struggle in which he has been pushed to do those things.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by YSR+December 05, 2007 07:19 pm--> (YSR @ December 05, 2007 07:19 pm)
hands off venezuela
According to eyewitness reports from Hands Off Venezuela members...

I stopped reading here.

So hold on. You don&#39;t believe my sources that say it was a Chavista attack on a bunch of anarchists and I&#39;m not going to believe your sources that say it was a fascist attack on a Chavista community. Big fucking deal. Most of the argument about Venezuela seems to take on the question of whose sources are correct.

What this misses is the larger question, which is "Is a reformist &#39;revolution&#39; led by a single man truly the path to a communist society?" Of course, if you toned down the hype about Chavez, both from the bourgeois media and the Chavista media, this question would be easy to answer: No.

Interesting that the HOV article didn&#39;t show the pictures of masked men inside the building shooting at students outside. Those can be found here:
http://argentina.indymedia.org/news/2007/11/562981.php [/b]
"individuals" dont make the revolutions by themselves.

When the jacobins carried the bourgeois revolution, it wasnt carried by "only" by them.

The revolution will happen because the bourgeosie will attack first. Putting chavez away, there is a genuine class movements in the ranks of the Bolivarian movement. The question is pushing it towards communsim.

[YSR]

"individuals" dont make the revolutions by themselves.

When the jacobins carried the bourgeois revolution, it wasnt carried by "only" by them.

Obviously not. That&#39;s why I say that this is not really a revolution.

[Herman]

So hold on. You don&#39;t believe my sources that say it was a Chavista attack on a bunch of anarchists and I&#39;m not going to believe your sources that say it was a fascist attack on a Chavista community. Big fucking deal. Most of the argument about Venezuela seems to take on the question of whose sources are correct.


Except Bourgeois sources also confirm what Hands off Venezuela members said.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 09:12 pm

"individuals" dont make the revolutions by themselves.

When the jacobins carried the bourgeois revolution, it wasnt carried by "only" by them.

Obviously not. That&#39;s why I say that this is not really a revolution.
If you think throughout history, classes imposed themselves by simultaneously and spotaneously taking over the aparattus of the state, you are dead wrong.

Generally, there were certain "advanced groups" that were pushed by the class dynamics of a certain class.


Really, it is not how the overthrow of a class decides the class character of a society, but the way that future society is built.

I think this is where anarchists and some left communists kinda failed. they think revolution means masses of millions storming into official buildings. It has never worked like that, nor it will ever will.

[Herman]

I think this is where anarchists and some left communists kinda failed. they think revolution means masses of millions storming into official buildings. It has never worked like that, nor it will ever will.

At last, someone spoke some sense.

[chebol]

A short note from Mike Lebowitz in Caracas:



No time or desire for anything more than a quick comment.
Careful not to be blinded by your preconceptions and ideology out
there-- especially all that pontificating about how Chavez blew it
with the proposal to remove term limits. From here, I&#39;d say that the
original 33 proposals (&#39;without changing a comma&#39;) would have won
despite their complexity--- before the National Assembly in its
wisdom added 36 additional complex clauses with such crowd-pleasers
as the national emergency provisions and the increased numbers of
signatures necessary to trigger referenda. Even more to the point,
I&#39;d say that if there had been one constitutional change alone--- the
one related to removal of term limits, it would have won handily&#33; You
out there with your faux democratic precepts may think the mass of
people were primarily concerned about the possibility that Chavez
might run again next time, but it was the fear of their children
being taken from them, the loss of their homes, etc that really
resonated. The one provision alone (or a politically constructed
package) would have concentrated the Chavist support instead of
confusing it and organising the enemy.
michael
Michael A. Lebowitz
Professor Emeritus
Economics Department
Simon Fraser University
Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6

Director, Programme in &#39;Transformative Practice and Human Development&#39;
Centro Internacional Miranda, P.H.
Residencias Anauco Suites, Parque Central, final Av. Bolivar
Caracas, Venezuela
fax: 0212 5768274/0212 5777231
http//:centrointernacionalmiranda.gob.ve
[email protected]

[YSR]

I think this is where anarchists and some left communists kinda failed. they think revolution means masses of millions storming into official buildings. It has never worked like that, nor it will ever will.

You mean like the assault on the Winter Palace? Or the countless proletarian expropriations in the period leading up to the October Revolution? etc etc?

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Marmot+December 06, 2007 12:21 am--> (Marmot @ December 06, 2007 12:21 am)
[email protected] 05, 2007 09:12 pm

"individuals" dont make the revolutions by themselves.

When the jacobins carried the bourgeois revolution, it wasnt carried by "only" by them.

Obviously not. That&#39;s why I say that this is not really a revolution.
If you think throughout history, classes imposed themselves by simultaneously and spotaneously taking over the aparattus of the state, you are dead wrong.

Generally, there were certain "advanced groups" that were pushed by the class dynamics of a certain class.


Really, it is not how the overthrow of a class decides the class character of a society, but the way that future society is built.

I think this is where anarchists and some left communists kinda failed. they think revolution means masses of millions storming into official buildings. It has never worked like that, nor it will ever will. [/b]
I think that you have got this entirely wrong. It is not about who is &#39;storming official buildings&#39;, but about which class is in power, and in Venezuela it is certainly not the proletariat.

The thing that amazes me is how much of the left are prepared to throw away class analysis as soon as some general mentions the word &#39;socialism&#39;.

Devrim

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 06:38 am
The thing that amazes me is how much of the left are prepared to throw away class analysis as soon as some general mentions the word &#39;socialism&#39;.

Devrim
I don&#39;t know that many who argue that Venezuala is a socialist state. That&#39;s obviously incorrect.

I thought the argument of the Trots and a few others at least was that there was a revolutionary opportunity, but the workers have to push even further.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by PRC&#045;[email protected] 06, 2007 06:57 am
I don&#39;t know that many who argue that Venezuala is a socialist state. That&#39;s obviously incorrect.

I think that there are enough of them on here.
Devrim

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by Devrim+December 06, 2007 06:38 am--> (Devrim @ December 06, 2007 06:38 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 12:21 am

[email protected] 05, 2007 09:12 pm

"individuals" dont make the revolutions by themselves.

When the jacobins carried the bourgeois revolution, it wasnt carried by "only" by them.

Obviously not. That&#39;s why I say that this is not really a revolution.
If you think throughout history, classes imposed themselves by simultaneously and spotaneously taking over the aparattus of the state, you are dead wrong.

Generally, there were certain "advanced groups" that were pushed by the class dynamics of a certain class.


Really, it is not how the overthrow of a class decides the class character of a society, but the way that future society is built.

I think this is where anarchists and some left communists kinda failed. they think revolution means masses of millions storming into official buildings. It has never worked like that, nor it will ever will.
I think that you have got this entirely wrong. It is not about who is &#39;storming official buildings&#39;, but about which class is in power, and in Venezuela it is certainly not the proletariat.

The thing that amazes me is how much of the left are prepared to throw away class analysis as soon as some general mentions the word &#39;socialism&#39;.

Devrim [/b]
I never said the proletariat is in power in Venezuela.

I am simply stating that there is a genuine class movement in the rank and file of the bolivarian movement, and that it is fertile enough for us communists to push it.

I am not a trotskyist.


You mean like the assault on the Winter Palace? Or the countless proletarian expropriations in the period leading up to the October Revolution? etc etc?

The assault of the winter palace, wasnt made by "thousands of thousands", it was made by a vanguard of Bolsheviks.

There have been also factory occupations in Venezuela.

Look, there is nothing wrong with a critical approach. But throwing away everything and making sweeping statements about current struggles is really bad, or taking the bankrupt antichavista stance as many "anarchists" in Venezuela are doing.

[La Comédie Noire]

QUOTE
I think this is where anarchists and some left communists kinda failed. they think revolution means masses of millions storming into official buildings. It has never worked like that, nor it will ever will.



You mean like the assault on the Winter Palace? Or the countless proletarian expropriations in the period leading up to the October Revolution? etc etc?

Actually a large part of the organization of the workers, peasents, and soldiers can be contributed to the Bolsheviki, who broke away from the Marxist Russian Social Democratic Labour Party in 1903, and the councils. That&#39;s just one case of where "it didn&#39;t just happen."

Of course this is feudalist Russia 1917 we are talking about which is a far cry from Venezuela 2007.

[RebelDog]

Chavez is holding things back in Venezuela. The working class and the peasants should push their interests in spite of what Chavez says or does.

[Herman]

I think that there are enough of them on here.

No one, not even me, has stated that Venezuela is socialist.

However, the current process may lead to socialism, but only if the current bureaucracy is fought and the rightist opportunists within the movement are dealt with.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 07:16 am
I never said the proletariat is in power in Venezuela.

I am simply stating that there is a genuine class movement in the rank and file of the bolivarian movement, and that it is fertile enough for us communists to push it.

I am not a trotskyist.


I am not convinced, looking at it very briefly, it seems that the working class is being mobilised behind a faction of the state (i.e. bourgeoisie)

Devrim

[Guest1]

Yes, the bourgeoisie, who are defined by Devrim as the state, have an ingenious plan to empower factory councils, community councils and student councils up and down the country. They were trying to fool the proletariat into voting for a 6-hour working day, those dastardly bastards. They were attempting to lead the proletariat behind them into a dark future of free universities, healthcare and social housing. They were going to make the process of taking land from big estates and redistributing it to the peasants, too easy.

Thank god Devrim saw through their "socialist" language, and exposed all these evil machinations. Thank god the proletariat didn&#39;t vote for all those things, they would have strengthened these weasily bourgois-state guys... Somehow...

[Herman]

I am not convinced, looking at it very briefly, it seems that the working class is being mobilised behind a faction of the state (i.e. bourgeoisie)

The problem is not the state, it is the bureaucracy which calls itself "socialist" and attempts to sabotage the bolivarian revolution.

[chebol]

Herman wrote:

The problem is not the state, it is the bureaucracy which calls itself "socialist" and attempts to sabotage the bolivarian revolution.

Actually, there are two problems, the capitalists that still have a degree of free reign in Venezuela (especially the media), and the existing bourgeois state (which Chavez himself has fingered as such, and called for its dismantling. Up yours to all the idiots who badmouth Hugo), including particularly the bureaucracy within the Chavez camp, who either call themselves "chavistas" or "socialists", yet effectively sabotage the revolutionary movement.

The Dissenter, you&#39;re an idiot (well, a political idiot, I won&#39;t speak for your general social demeanour). You and those like you fundamentally fail to understand what&#39;s going on in Venezuela, and can only see it through unchanging dogmas, much like fundamentalists only see the world through the literal meaning of their holy books.

Go back and take another look.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Che y Marijuana+December 06, 2007 09:40 am--> (Che y Marijuana @ December 06, 2007 09:40 am) Yes, the bourgeoisie, who are defined by Devrim as the state, have an ingenious plan to empower factory councils, community councils and student councils up and down the country. They were trying to fool the proletariat into voting for a 6-hour working day, those dastardly bastards. They were attempting to lead the proletariat behind them into a dark future of free universities, healthcare and social housing. They were going to make the process of taking land from big estates and redistributing it to the peasants, too easy.

[/b]
No, I don&#39;t define the bourgeoisie as the state, but in a bourgeois state the different factions of the state are different factions of the bourgeoisie.

I have heard people on the left make promises before. I am particularly cynical about them when the people making them are the ones at the apex of a state, which is attacking worker&#39;s living conditions (see all the whining on this thread about not including the statistics for the year when there were most attacks on the working class in statistics on Venezuela).

I can personally remember &#39;winning&#39; a strike for a five day week about twenty years ago, but we never got it in our job. I didn&#39;t take Chavez&#39;s talk of a six hour day at face value. I would suggest that others learn to at least think twice before believing the bosses promises.


Che y Marijuana
Thank god Devrim saw through their "socialist" language, and exposed all these evil machinations. Thank god the proletariat didn&#39;t vote for all those things, they would have strengthened these weasily bourgois-state guys... Somehow...

It is not about me seeing through it. The low turn out, which was centred on workers&#39; districts suggests that the working class in Venezuela has.

Devrim

[chebol]

Devrim wrote:

I didn&#39;t take Chavez&#39;s talk of a six hour day at face value. I would suggest that others learn to at least think twice before believing the bosses promises.

The first part of your point is correct, more or less. The eight hour day is a dream in Venezuela, outside, perhaps, of the state sector. The rest of the workforce, particularly the informal sector, which constitutes a good half of the economy, works something like 70 hours per week.

The second part of your point shows that you fail to understand *why* Chavez would want to put this proposal forward. It is not simply a question of "the boss" promising something. Chavez is NOT "the boss". That betrays a fundamental lack of understanding the role of Chavez in Venezuela, and the line-up of class forces there. While a "constitutional" 6-hour day would be practically meaningless *RIGHT NOW*, much like the 1999 Constitution, it was, and is, meant to be a tool, a weapon given the imprimatur of the population as a whole, for the working class (including the informal sector) to organise around, something to give it confidence and direction.

Sitting at your computer, you misunderstand the nature, and height, of the barricades in the class war in Venezuela.


I have heard people on the left make promises before. I am particularly cynical about them when the people making them are the ones at the apex of a state, which is attacking worker&#39;s living conditions (see all the whining on this thread about not including the statistics for the year when there were most attacks on the working class in statistics on Venezuela).

Sorry, you&#39;re going to have to prove this one with more than bravura.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 12:37 pm
Sitting at your computer, you misunderstand the nature, and height, of the barricades in the class war in Venezuela.

But of course, you sitting at your computer understand it perfectly.


The first part of your point is correct, more or less. The eight hour day is a dream in Venezuela, outside, perhaps, of the state sector. The rest of the workforce, particularly the informal sector, which constitutes a good half of the economy, works something like 70 hours per week.

So what you are saying was that the whole 6 hour day was never going to effect the majority of workers. I would have been surprised to have seen it effect the state sector too. Obviously workers didn&#39;t take this promise seriously, or they would have voted for it.


Sorry, you&#39;re going to have to prove this one with more than bravura.

Go back to the economic argument earlier in the thread.


The second part of your point shows that you fail to understand *why* Chavez would want to put this proposal forward. It is not simply a question of "the boss" promising something. Chavez is NOT "the boss". That betrays a fundamental lack of understanding the role of Chavez in Venezuela, and the line-up of class forces there.

What is Chavez if not the boss. A boss who presides over a capitalist state. Or are you going to claim something absurd like they have socialism in Venezuela?


While a "constitutional" 6-hour day would be practically meaningless *RIGHT NOW*, much like the 1999 Constitution, it was, and is, meant to be a tool, a weapon given the imprimatur of the population as a whole, for the working class (including the informal sector) to organise around, something to give it confidence and direction.

The first nine words of this say all that needs to be said.

Devrim

[Andy Bowden]

On the issue of the 6 hour day, technically, in the UK equal pay legislation was introduced sometime in the 70s; in reality, many women, particularly council workers have not recieved equal pay - and only now is the issue arising (in a particularly twisted steal-peter-to-give-to-paul way, where workers are facing cuts in their pay to finance the equal pay deal).

There are also many workplaces (although a minority) which do not have the minimum wage - despite legally obliged to do so. When they are found, many are simply warned not to do it again.

So there are many cases where the rights fought for by workers, or progressive reforms are enacted in law, but not in practice. This signifies the need for working class and Socialist political organisation.

But it doesn&#39;t mean we should see changes in the law as being "irrelevant" because they may not be enforced everywhere, and/or ignored where the workers are not politically counscious that they have won them. For 3 reasons,

1) They will still be enacted in some areas, pobably the majority, representing a material gain for workers.

2) They at least provide the legal basis to challenge an employer etc on if they refuse to pay minimum wage etc, as opposed to nothing if they are not technically on the books.

3) If the law is not enforced, it exposes the bourgeois system as being unable and unwilling to enforce its own laws when they benefit workers.

This confronts the most challenging task for Socialists, where capitalism now rules much of the earth not through the gun but by maintaining the hegemony of its ideas.

[chebol]

Go back to the economic argument earlier in the thread.

Like I said, try harder.


Obviously workers didn&#39;t take this promise seriously, or they would have voted for it.

Or there were other reason alongside that scepticism as well.


What is Chavez if not the boss. A boss who presides over a capitalist state. Or are you going to claim something absurd like they have socialism in Venezuela?


I would like to introduce you to three (well, four) little things...

1. My earlier post, where I pointed out that Chavez actually called the vzln state capitalist, and called for the dismantling of such. As such, I think I&#39;ve made it quite clear that I&#39;m under no illusions that vzla is capitalist

2. Maybe you could allow your meagre brain-cells a little free time from your rigorous abstention from reality, and let them think about *why* Chavez would even raise that - and other - demands if he was all about maintaining capitalist rule. It&#39;s sort of rare to find capitalist rulers walking around saying "Hey, workers, capitalism is destroying your lives and the planet&#33; You must destroy it yourselves and replace it with the self-rule of the labouring masses, known as socialism."

3. Try a search with the phrase "workers&#39; and peasants&#39; government" (as opposed to "w & p state")

4. Reality. I have numerous friends and comrades currently involved (as I have been) in the Chavista process, with whom I am in constant contact, and who relay a great deal more meaningful information than it would be helpful to share on this board. You needn&#39;t accept this argument, as the internet is a wonderful front for every armchair "revolutionary", but that would only be your loss. Regardless, there are enough facts extant to show your argument to be nuts without resorting any further to the "but I know x, y or z" approach.

[chebol]

Andy Bowden wrote


But it doesn&#39;t mean we should see changes in the law as being "irrelevant" because they may not be enforced everywhere, and/or ignored where the workers are not politically counscious that they have won them. For 3 reasons,

1) They will still be enacted in some areas, pobably the majority, representing a material gain for workers.

2) They at least provide the legal basis to challenge an employer etc on if they refuse to pay minimum wage etc, as opposed to nothing if they are not technically on the books.

3) If the law is not enforced, it exposes the bourgeois system as being unable and unwilling to enforce its own laws when they benefit workers.

This confronts the most challenging task for Socialists, where capitalism now rules much of the earth not through the gun but by maintaining the hegemony of its ideas.

QFT

[Herman]

I would like to introduce you to three (well, four) little things...

1. My earlier post, where I pointed out that Chavez actually called the vzln state capitalist, and called for the dismantling of such. As such, I think I&#39;ve made it quite clear that I&#39;m under no illusions that vzla is capitalist

2. Maybe you could allow your meagre brain-cells a little free time from your rigorous abstention from reality, and let them think about *why* Chavez would even raise that - and other - demands if he was all about maintaining capitalist rule. It&#39;s sort of rare to find capitalist rulers walking around saying "Hey, workers, capitalism is destroying your lives and the planet&#33; You must destroy it yourselves and replace it with the self-rule of the labouring masses, known as socialism."

3. Try a search with the phrase "workers&#39; and peasants&#39; government" (as opposed to "w & p state")

4. Reality. I have numerous friends and comrades currently involved (as I have been) in the Chavista process, with whom I am in constant contact, and who relay a great deal more meaningful information than it would be helpful to share on this board. You needn&#39;t accept this argument, as the internet is a wonderful front for every armchair "revolutionary", but that would only be your loss. Regardless, there are enough facts extant to show your argument to be nuts without resorting any further to the "but I know x, y or z" approach.

You are completely correct.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 01:07 pm

Go back to the economic argument earlier in the thread.

Like I said, try harder.

One could respond if people had addressed it. They didn&#39;t. The best response was &#39;see this website&#39;.


Reality. I have numerous friends and comrades currently involved (as I have been) in the Chavista process, with whom I am in constant contact, and who relay a great deal more meaningful information than it would be helpful to share on this board. You needn&#39;t accept this argument, as the internet is a wonderful front for every armchair "revolutionary", but that would only be your loss. Regardless, there are enough facts extant to show your argument to be nuts without resorting any further to the "but I know x, y or z" approach.

The armchair revolutionary bit is something used by people who have run out of arguments. Obviously the writer knows nothing about the person he is referring to.

We have comrades in Venezuela, and they tell us that the working class is paying for the crisis there. I am more inclined to believe them than some Australia leftist.

Basically, you post amounts to a lot of bluster, a few insults, and very little politics.

Devrim

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 02:05 pm

We have comrades in Venezuela, and they tell us that the working class is paying for the crisis there. I am more inclined to believe them than some Australia leftist.

Basically, you post amounts to a lot of bluster, a few insults, and very little politics.

Devrim
The ICC?

i think it is a tad hypocritial of them, considering they are so enthusiastic about the october revolution, which was a product of the february revolution--the latter one not being exactly only dominated by "proletarian" forces.

people who abstained from voting in the referendum show more their cautrion about centralizing power than blatant "antichavismo".

[AGITprop]

comrades in montreal support reform infront of venezuean consulate&#33;
[img]http://i244.photobucket.com/albums/gg40/iamtheender/pro-chavezdemo.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' class='attach' />

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 06:43 pm
comrades in montreal support reform infront of venezuean consulate&#33;
[img]http://i244.photobucket.com/albums/gg40/iamtheender/pro-chavezdemo.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' class='attach' />
Solidarity. I wish I could&#39;ve done the same, but the only consulate in my city is an Austrian one.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 02:29 pm
i think it is a tad hypocritial of them, considering they are so enthusiastic about the october revolution, which was a product of the february revolution--the latter one not being exactly only dominated by "proletarian" forces.

How does the Bolivarian "Revolution" have anything to do with the October Revolution?

[Faux Real]

I heard most of the provisions in the referendum can be made into law through the ordinary legislative process. If so this electoral loss is nothing to worry about at all. For Chavez supporters, of course.