Question to left-communists: Venezuela

[Die Neue Zeit]

I know the irony that Venezuela was where the ICC was founded, so here goes:

I know that the ICC encourages working-class Venezuelans to revolt against the Chavez regime. That's fair enough. However, during this past referendum, did the ICC promote the idea that workers should show up and vote "NO," rather than abstain?

[There was this non-ICC "ultra-left" group, the UNT, that CyM lashed out about in a Trotskyist forum thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/trotskyist-attitudes-bolivarianism-t70075/index.html).]

[Devrim]

I know that the ICC encourages working-class Venezuelans to revolt against the Chavez regime. That's fair enough. However, during this past referendum, did the ICC promote the idea that workers should show up and vote "NO," rather than abstain?

Of course they didn't. One of the defining points of the communist left is abstentionism.

Devrim

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ That's principled (I think), but yeah I asked this question because of controversial material cited in an angry thread of mine in our user group on parliamentarianism (which forced me to start that thread before this one).

[Xiao Banfa]

What a fuckin pathetic joke.

[Die Neue Zeit]

BACK ON TOPIC...

I wonder why CyM didn't call out Chirino and [EDIT: his current within] the UNT for what they REALLY are: MENSHEVIKS.

[Because modern Mensheviks do NOT abstain - but then again, "ultra-left" is a more convenient yet more easily abused term, isn't it? :rolleyes: ]

[Faceless]

Jacob, what ARE you on about?

Firstly, the UNT isn't one organisation with a unified position on the referendum. The UNT is a trade union body with a whole load of currents in it. Within the left C-CURA wing, there are sections which supported the referendum and sections around Chirino which were against. To say the UNT as a whole is "Menshevik" seems to me to be absurd. It is ridden with divisions and devoid of a leadership which is able to do anything other than witter away its social base.

And ultra-leftism isn't defined by your position on elections. Certainly you can't define it as being whether or not you agree with some irrelevant group called the ICC. Lenin called the British Communists "ultra-left" because they refused to engage Labour workers. He also used it to describe those who refused to take part in parliaments, and also those who refused to take part in right-wing unions and workers' parties. In that sense ultra-leftism is any movement in the workers movement which, usually due to frustration or impatience, leads to that movement detaching itself from the real and everyday struggles of the working class, not just abstentionists (who, granted, are ultra-lefts). In that sense you could call Chirino as much an ultra-leftist as the ICC. Why that should be mutually exclusive with "Menshevism", I don't know. Is it not possible for a group to be sectarian to the point of joining up with pro-capitalist forces? I would say that the overwhelming evidence is that all these sectarian groups at a certain stage, in seeking a short-cut to "revolution" find themselves lining up with the wrong sorts. Chirino is no exception.

Further proof that Chirino has acted in a completely sectarian way is that he is now unable even to mobilize workers to defend HIS job.

[black magick hustla]

Engaging with workers of reactionary organizations while not supporting such organizations is fucking different than "detaching oneself" from the struggle of everyday people. The ICC was founded by workers and is mostly made up of workers, who struggle also with their own lives.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ So some comrade who is for "spoiled abstentionism" (showing up, but spoiling ballots) on the basis of taking both Martin Luther King Jr's example for minimum demands (demands which left-communists disregard entirely) and Rosa Luxemburg's mass strike for reformist demands (again, demands which left-communists disregard entirely), as well as on the material basis of the presence of Big Media, NGOs, and the Internet (as opposed to the left-communist insistence on capitalist decadence) - is "ultra-left"? :glare:

[black magick hustla]

Left communists dont disregard "mass strikes for "reformist" demands". Just read the ICC news section once in a while, and they always cheer strikes, etc.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ BTW, this thread is related to my user group thread on parliamentarianism. You SHOULD check it out. ;)

Nevertheless, left-communists are program-wise all for only the "revolutionary demands," dumping minimum and reformist demands altogether, even if they support worker-based civil disobedience (minimum) and mass strikes (reformist). Sorry for not being clear. :(

[Faceless]

Marmot:
For your benefit, I don't really care whether the ICC is "abstentionist on principle" or not. I am taking issue with Mr. Jacob because he is defining an "ultra-left" position to be whatever the ICC says on principle, and anyother definition as wrong.



^^^ So some comrade who is for "spoiled abstentionism" (showing up, but spoiling ballots) on the basis of taking both Martin Luther King Jr's example for minimum demands (which left-communists disregard entirely) and Rosa Luxemburg's mass strike for reformist demands (again, which left-communists disregard entirely), as well as on the material basis of the presence of Big Media, NGOs, and the Internet (as opposed to the left-communist insistence on capitalist decadence) - is "ultra-left"? :glare:

Jacob, let us be scientific about this. The fact in itself of whether or not "some comrade" takes a position of spoiling there ballot paper or supporting some reformist demand IN ITSELF is neither menshevik or ultra-leftist. It just IS. If the overwhelming majority of workers consider a "yes" vote or a vote for the socialist party to be a vote for socialism and the cause of Labour, and yet the comrade still takes a position of spoiling their ballot, then yes, they may well be ultra-left. If on the other hand there is a mood of boycotting a discredited election process then to abstain would NOT be ultra-left. What is important in this is the position of "some comrade" to the mass struggle of the working class (I will emphasise MASS struggle for Marmot's benefit. Yes, we all struggle, and we are all everyday people).

[EDIT]: I looked through the thread you linked to, but I couldn't find where you contributed to it. Admittedly, I didn't read through it cover to cover, but I presumed you was taking issue with CyM's position on what it is to be an "ultra-left"

[black magick hustla]

ultraleft is a meaningless swear word that can be used by anyone. There is no "paradigm" of ultraleftism.

Left communists support mass working class movements all the time. Whether you equate voting "yes" in the ballot for some bureacrat who sends the pigs to crush striking workers, to a mass working class movement is your problem.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Ah, but what if, in the era of advocating more openly for reformist demands, mass strikes turn out to be more effective in the class struggle than the cesspool of parliamentarian corruption? At the point in which they're more effective, mass strikes discredit the parliamentary process.

[Marmot... ;) ]

[Faceless]

what bureaucrat crushing which striking workers are you referring to?

Of course, however badly and bureaucraticly run the "yes" vote campaign was, the men and women supporting it were socialists and workers. And, yes, it was a mass working class campaign.

[Devrim]

what bureaucrat crushing which striking workers are you referring to?

I presume the Venezuelan government sending in the National Guard against the steel workers.


Nevertheless, left-communists are program-wise all for only the "revolutionary demands," dumping minimum and reformist demands altogether, even if they support worker-based civil disobedience (minimum) and mass strikes (reformist).

The communist left supports all struggles on a class terrain in defence of workers living conditions.


Jacob, let us be scientific about this. The fact in itself of whether or not "some comrade" takes a position of spoiling there ballot paper or supporting some reformist demand IN ITSELF is neither menshevik or ultra-leftist. It just IS. If the overwhelming majority of workers consider a "yes" vote or a vote for the socialist party to be a vote for socialism and the cause of Labour, and yet the comrade still takes a position of spoiling their ballot, then yes, they may well be ultra-left. If on the other hand there is a mood of boycotting a discredited election process then to abstain would NOT be ultra-left. What is important in this is the position of "some comrade" to the mass struggle of the working class (I will emphasise MASS struggle for Marmot's benefit. Yes, we all struggle, and we are all everyday people).

What do you think of this?:


Comrade Kamenev contraposes to a 'party of the masses' a 'group of propagandists'. But the 'masses' have now succumbed to the craze of 'revolutionary' defencism. Is it not more becoming for internationalists at this moment to show that they can resist 'mass' intoxication rather than to 'wish to remain' with the masses, i.e., to succumb to the general epidemic? Have we not seen how in all the belligerent countries of Europe the chauvinists tried to justify themselves on the grounds that they wished to 'remain with the masses'? Must we not be able to remain for a time in the minority against the 'mass' intoxication? Is it not the work of the propagandists at the present moment that forms the key point for disentangling the proletarian line from the defencist and petty-bourgeois 'mass' intoxication?

Devrim

[Die Neue Zeit]

If the overwhelming majority of workers consider a "yes" vote or a vote for the socialist party to be a vote for socialism and the cause of Labour, and yet the comrade still takes a position of spoiling their ballot, then yes, they may well be ultra-left.

...

[EDIT]: I looked through the thread you linked to, but I couldn't find where you contributed to it. Admittedly, I didn't read through it cover to cover, but I presumed you was taking issue with CyM's position on what it is to be an "ultra-left"

Yes, indeed: the problem I have with CyM's position here is that Chirino encouraged workers to VOTE NO. This isn't "principled abstentionism" of the typical "ultra-left" (again, I use quotation marks here out of comradely non-sectarianism towards left-communists), but rather modern Menshevism using "ultra-left" rhetoric. After all, Mensheviks are notorious for collaborating with the bourgeoisie.



[I thank comrade PRC-UTE immensely for reviving this term for modern usage to describe passive "revolutionaries" and flip-floppers.]

[RNK]

There's not only the open acts of hostility by the beauraucracy of the Venezuelan government, there is also a high level of suppression by ignorance. Because Chavez and the Venezuelan government have not actually taken any actions to destabilize the control of capital in Venezuela and its economy, workers who are seeking self-management are essentially forced to go to the government for help and on many occasions the government has refused, resulting in many instances of workers taking control of factories and production plants being abolished and returned to capitalist ownership.

I principally agree with the "far-left" edict of abstentionism (as 1st world Maoists also adhere to) and I believe that more radical, "far-left", if you will, actions need to take place in Venezuela. I too would probably have abstained from the recent referendum, and I think it is very important for the working masses of Venezuela to cut the embyllical cord that the government has them leashed by and begin more revolutionary activity to cut away the state. Each passing day there arises yet another example of the hostility the state has towards worker's rule. Comrades there and abroad really need to wake up and smell the class struggle.

[el_chavista]

When it comes to seize power, the working class got to make alliances with all the progressive actors who confront burgoises, no matter how behind those actors are from the marxist vanguard.

[Devrim]

When it comes to seize power, the working class got to make alliances with all the progressive actors who confront burgoises, no matter how behind those actors are from the marxist vanguard.
Why not taking advantage of the main "chavista" stream in Venezuela?

Because they end up sending in the national guard to shoot striking workers perhaps?

Devrim

[el_chavista]

Because they end up sending in the national guard to shoot striking workers perhaps?Devrim
Touche!
The bolivarian movement is a mess of politicians from all tendencies, most of them from the 4°Republic (former socialdemocrats and socialchristians). Is it only Chavez' fault?

[Devrim]

Is it only Chavez' fault?

He is the head of a bourgeois state that sends troops to shoot at striking workers. The fact that he spouts leftist rhetoric while doing it doesn't change anything.

Devrim

[el_chavista]

Actually, the Bolivar state gobernor (who is known for antiChavez declarations when the oil-coup-d'État) was who called the National Guard and other police corps for repressing the workers.

[Herman]

Actually, the Bolivar state gobernor (who is known for antiChavez declarations when the oil-coup-d'État) was who called the National Guard and other police corps for repressing the workers.

You are correct.

[Devrim]

So this is some completely independent governorship which is not connected in any way to the Venezuelan state that Chavez is the head of.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Devrim

[el_chavista]

There is no excuse for Chávez. I am just afraid of a situation without Chávez. In such case will be facing directly to the burgoises themselves.

[Devrim]

Chavez is a part of the bourgeoisie. You are directly facing them.
Devrim

[chimx]

The bourgeoisie and their corresponding state structure is not a monolithic entity worldwide. I think it's important to acknowledge there differences and work to exploit there differences for the benefit of working peoples. The Chavez government's primary constituency is working peoples and therefore Chavez has to work to some degree to not alienate his constituency by enacting legislation contrary to their interests. Yes he will still work to maintain capitalist production relationships between Venezuela's workers and Venezuela's bosses, but he is also providing a situation that politicizes Venezuela's working people while at the same time gives material benefits.

Before 1917 Bolshevism worked hand-in-hand with the Czarist Duma and got behind liberal legislation. Marx advocated participation in bourgeois elections and exploiting the bourgeois superstructure. Not every waking moment is a revolutionary situation that just barely passes us by. In between these moments of revolutionary manifestations of proletarian consciousness we have to struggle within the bourgeois state for the material gain of working peoples. To some extent that means working within the Chavez framework -- but while always acknowledging its limitations.

[el_chavista]

Chavez is a part of the bourgeoisie...Devrim
While there be contradictions between Chávez and our bourgeoises, there is hope for a second communist bolivarian revolution. It should be easier against Chávez than against a USA-supported bourgeoisie.

[beltov]

Before 1917 Bolshevism worked hand-in-hand with the Czarist Duma and got behind liberal legislation. Marx advocated participation in bourgeois elections and exploiting the bourgeois superstructure. Not every waking moment is a revolutionary situation that just barely passes us by. In between these moments of revolutionary manifestations of proletarian consciousness we have to struggle within the bourgeois state for the material gain of working peoples. To some extent that means working within the Chavez framework -- but while always acknowledging its limitations.

But you are talking as if time has stood still. We are not in the 19th century any more, when the bourgeois revolution was still on the agenda. Since 1917 only the proletarian revolution has been on the agenda, which means that the proletariat cannot make any alliances with the bourgeoisie. Also, the 20th century saw the bourgeois state absorb the whole of civil society to the point where state capitalism is synonymous with the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Chavez is defending the interests of the bourgeoisie.

In fact history has shown that it is harder for the working class to fight left-wing governments precisely because they dress themselves up in workerist clothes (Germany 1918, Spain 1936-7, and Chavez today). All governments use parties and unions that were once part of the workers' movement as weapons against the working class. I'm not saying there is a lesser evil between fascist, liberal or social-democratic governments - they are all different faces of the bourgeoisie.

Beltov (ICC).

[el_chavista]

Foodstuffs industrialists are fighting Chávez not only broadcasting propaganda but also with hoarding and prices speculation, in an attempt to lessen his popularity. That must make Chávez understand the workers importance.

[nanovapor]

Hello, what do you mean by ICC?

thanx

nanovapor

[Ferryman 5]

Rosa Lichtenstein (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?find=lastposter&t=74271) is a “moderator” which means she will threaten to shut you out of this site if you persist in arguing with here. That is why she is able to talk nonsense without sanction. The best thing is to pretend that she is of some consequence and talk round her

[nanovapor]

Hello: I like the articles a lot of "International Communist Current" however i think that they need a little bit of "political realitike" class, they are too perfectionists, too puritan, too objectivist, and reality doesn't work like they think. Reality is more Leninist, more statist, less anarchist. It is very hard to implement an anarchist utopy right now. We must work with reality, not against it, we must dream, however we must be down to earth species, not utopian dreamers.

nanovapor