Venezuela Student Discussion

[Luís Henrique]

So, where are all the Chavistas now eh?

Meeting you in the place you went when your absurds about the "revolutionary" White Hands movement were proven?

Luís Henrique

[Entrails Konfetti]

If you wish to rely on graffics from a blog, Luis.

[Luís Henrique]

If you wish to rely on graffics from a blog, Luis.

Yeah?

You shut down (OK, that in itself is a hyperbole, but...) a reactionary TV station, and you have "White Hands" all over the place, making the most ridiculously petty bourgeois statements. You repress workers striking for better wages and working conditions, and... where are your "White Hands"?

Luís Henrique

[black magick hustla]

Yeah?

You shut down (OK, that in itself is a hyperbole, but...) a reactionary TV station, and you have "White Hands" all over the place, making the most ridiculously petty bourgeois statements. You repress workers striking for better wages and working conditions, and... where are your "White Hands"?

Luís Henrique


I agree somewhat with LH.

The "Opposition" students that were rambling in the streets had nothing to do with "class war"; they were just a bunch of disgruntled rich white kids being backed by the anti-chavista capital. Just browse the spanish facebook "anti-chavez student groups", they are racist to the core.

I didn't like that article about the ICC, but it was a little error that seems they haven't repeated again. I think the hordes of trots and tankies who flop on their bellies before Chavez are a million times worse.

[Devrim]

Luís, if you remember I was very dubious about that students movement at the time. In fact only one member of our organisation went on about it (Leo). Now maybe the fact that he is very vocal on this (English) forum gives a false impression. In fact the issue wasn't even mentioned in our press (in Turkish).

I don't know much about Latin America, and tend to avoid making statements beyond general principles on things I don't know much about.

I have no real idea whether the ICC were right or wrong on this movement (though I suspect the latter). That doesn't mean that they are not right now.

Devrim

[Luís Henrique]

Luís, if you remember I was very dubious about that students movement at the time. In fact only one member of our organisation went on about it (Leo).

Plus half a dozen of other, non-Turkish, left-communists, if I correctly recall.


I have no real idea whether the ICC were right or wrong on this movement (though I suspect the latter). That doesn't mean that they are not right now.

Of course not (though it certainly undermines their credibility). In fact, taking out the tons of hyperbole, and the usual anti-union stand, they are correct about the fundamental fact: this is a working class action, and the Venezolan State is acting repressively against them. After all, even a still clock, etc.

Whether the workers themselves are making a tactic mistake is a different issue - the working class is not blunder-proof. But there is a basic difference between a working class movement - even when it gets everything wrong - and a petty-bourgeois right-wing movement. A proletarian organisation that fails to see such difference has a huge problem.

My reaction was directed against beltov's provocative post. Evidently those who overestimate Chavez's "socialism" are wrong, but it is not like they are the only ones that are wrong on Venezuela's situation.

Luís Henrique

[Devrim]

Plus half a dozen of other, non-Turkish, left-communists, if I correctly recall.
I don't think that there are half a dozen left communists on here, but to be fair to you, the ICC argued it. That proves your point.


Of course not (though it certainly undermines their credibility).

Agreed.


they are correct about the fundamental fact: this is a working class action, and the Venezolan State is acting repressively against them.

Agreed.


After all, even a still clock, etc.

This is a point. But what about those who are arguing that it is socialism. They are more like a clock whose hands have fallen off.


Whether the workers themselves are making a tactic mistake is a different issue - the working class is not blunder-proof. But there is a basic difference between a working class movement - even when it gets everything wrong - and a petty-bourgeois right-wing movement. A proletarian organisation that fails to see such difference has a huge problem.

As you say it is a different question. However, if we are talking about the state, ı don't think that shooting at workers is a 'tactical mistake'. Nor do I think that you imply that it is. What I am saying is that those who support this put themselves very clearly on the other side of the class line.


My reaction was directed against beltov's provocative post. Evidently those who overestimate Chavez's "socialism" are wrong, but it is not like they are the only ones that are wrong on Venezuela's situation.

Yes, people make mistakes, and I am quite sure that people who adhere to the communist left can also make mistakes.

Who do you think is making the biggest mistake here though?

Devrim

[Entrails Konfetti]

Yes, perhaps the support of the college movement was a mistake, Luis.

But, you made the mistake of relying heavily on pictures and photoshop art from a blog. Blogs are one of the most unrealiable things published on the internet, any fool with half a brain can publish a blog.

Everytime a Left-Communist or an ICC member brings up situtations that they were correct on, and uses them in an argument-- you bring up this old thing. It's already been stated that perhaps errors were made, yet you persist.

[Leo]

Thread split as this discussion had nothing to do with the steel workers strike.

A few comments on the issue, I have read about it and all and the way I more or less think about this is that independent proletarian sources opposed to all bourgeois factions, and with that I do not only mean the ICC but also the Venezuelan anarcho-syndicalists who were heavily involved with it for example. So I am still very skeptical about oppositions claim that this was their movement, or the governments claim that the movement was only one of rich white kids (of which the only proof is a few photos). Even if the ICC hadn't commented on this, I would be more likely to trust the anarchists words on this rather than the governments or the oppositions.

This said, of course, I don't think anyone posting on this board has been there and experienced it, so all who are discussing are basing all this on what they have read about it.

Lastly I believe Luis has forgotten the position that was being argued:


Meeting you in the place you went when your absurds about the "revolutionary" White Hands movement were proven?

The ICC never claimed that this movement was revolutionary in any way. They were very critical of the slogans of the movement which they said they considered bourgeois. All they said was that the attitude of rejecting both sides was a positive thing. Obviously, at least there were some elements that were genuinely opposed to both camps involved with the movement and I quoted them in the last discussion. For those interested: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=968235&postcount=186

[Luís Henrique]

Yes, perhaps the support of the college movement was a mistake, Luis.

Do I detect a budding auto-criticism here?


But, you made the mistake of relying heavily on pictures and photoshop art from a blog. Blogs are one of the most unrealiable things published on the internet, any fool with half a brain can publish a blog.


I never relied on a blog. I relied on the documented demands of the movement, which were, all of them, without a single exception, petty bourgeois demands, either for peace among the classes, or, on the contrary, for a State crackdown against the barriadas.


Everytime a Left-Communist or an ICC member brings up situtations that they were correct on, and uses them in an argument-- you bring up this old thing.

Perhaps those left-communists should print in their newspaper a new analysis of the White Hands movement, retracting from their mistakes?

beltov made a snide remark about the Chávez supporters here, obviously referring to their difficulty in defending Chávez and his government in this issue. I would be much more worried if they kept posting, for pages after pages, that the repression of the sidoristas is justified, that the workers are counter-revolutionary, that their demands are merely trade-unionists, that they are part of the proletarians aristocracy, etc.


It's already been stated that perhaps errors were made, yet you persist.

Devrim, who is not a member of the ICC, was cautious about the White Hands from the start. The others paraded it as a proletarian insurrection in the budding, and never made any comment that make me believe they have reevaluated the issue. In fact, they are doing the same beltov points the "Chavistas" are doing - keeping silent, because they don't know what to say.

Luís Henrique

[Leo]

The others paraded it as a proletarian insurrection

Again, no they did not.

[Wanted Man]

I didn't like that article about the ICC, but it was a little error that seems they haven't repeated again. I think the hordes of trots and tankies who flop on their bellies before Chavez are a million times worse.
So they retracted it? And what about the 'trots and tankies'? As Luis said, I have yet to see anybody trying to justify the clampdown on strikes.

By the way, when did you take the Kool-Aid?

[Wanted Man]

Anyway, comrades can read the discussion and judge for themselves. The opening article is quite telling. It speaks of an important step in the class struggle, it complains about chavistas disingenuously calling the students "rich college kids", it praises the "youth trying to break free". It's signed "The ICC" and has never been retracted, apparently. It takes a lot of denial to call this "a mistake" or to claim that Luis is wrong.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/student-movement-venezuela-t62963/index.html?t=62963

[Luís Henrique]

Again, no they did not.

Of course they did, with the "independent assemblies" argument, almost equating the students' meetings to embryo soviets.:lol:

But, then, there is a deeper problem: the ICC may well admit that their "critical" support of the White Hands was a mistake, but I doubt very much it will rethink the source of such "mistake" - the idea that what is fundamental in mass struggle are not the demands, but the "terrain". And, so, even if they recognise this punctual "mistake", they will be still poised to commit more of the same.

Luís Henrique

[Leo]

Of course they did, with the "independent assemblies" argument, almost equating the students' meetings to embryo soviets.

You have read things into what was said that weren't there. Saying that there were students assemblies, saying that there were slogans that rejected both camps and saying that those were indeed positive things is not the same thing with saying that there was a proletarian insurrection, or saying that there was a revolutionary situation, or even saying that the students were actions were revolutionary. I will consider claiming otherwise after this was made clear to be deliberately distorting the truth, to which I will not even bother to reply.


In fact, they are doing the same beltov points the "Chavistas" are doing - keeping silent, because they don't know what to say.

Actually I tried to read as much as possible on this from different sources, and I'm sure others did too. Most of the Chavist arguements were basically on the same line, and your arguements seemed quite close to theirs (that is not to say that you support Chavez as I know that at least you say you don't). I read other arguements from the bourgeois perspective, as well as what anarcho-syndicalists, students and so forth have writen. Obviously, none of us here can do is to read articles as no one was there.

I don't think left communists were / are "keeping silent" on this, I do however think that lots of people were indeed keeping silent when the state was beating, arresting and even murdering students in the streets.

[black magick hustla]

So they retracted it? And what about the 'trots and tankies'? As Luis said, I have yet to see anybody trying to justify the clampdown on strikes.

By the way, when did you take the Kool-Aid?

I drank the "Kool-Aid" when I realized I wouldn't like to defend my "homeland" (Mexico) if there is ever an American invasion. :lol:

Well you, don't "justify" it because you can't. Better not post than "defame" Señor Chavez.

[Luís Henrique]

deliberately distorting the truth

Here you have what is "deliberately distorting the truth":


the slogans of the movement which the media have treated as something secondary, such as the necessity to confront the problems of unemployment, delinquency, health and general poverty

When what the students actually said was,


solidarity with the 3000 workers of RCTV

against criminality

against poverty

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

You have read things into what was said that weren't there. Saying that there were students assemblies, saying that there were slogans that rejected both camps and saying that those were indeed positive things is not the same thing with saying that there was a proletarian insurrection, or saying that there was a revolutionary situation, or even saying that the students were actions were revolutionary.


These characteristics show that this movement has transcended the conflict between opposition and government and contains the seeds of putting the whole of the capitalist system of exploitation into question; thus it has unquestionably inscribed itself in the struggle of the wage labourers, of the proletariat.

So, I am reading things that weren't there, or are you failing to read what actually was there?

Luís Henrique

[Leo]

These characteristics show that this movement has transcended the conflict between opposition and government and contains the seeds of putting the whole of the capitalist system of exploitation into question
So, I am reading things that weren't thereYes, quite clearly in my opinion. Something that "contains the seeds" of another thing clearly is not that other thing yet, and that is the whole point of the seed analogy.

As quoted before, there were such elements within the movement as far as I understood, albeit not very clear ones.


or are you failing to read what actually was there?Does it say that this is a proletariat has risen against capitalism? Does it say that the students are revolutionaries and communists? Does it say that this is a proletarian insurrection? Does it say that there is a revolutionary situation there now?

No? As such were your claims, then I don't think I'm missing anything on this one.


Here you have what is "deliberately distorting the truth":


the slogans of the movement which the media have treated as something secondary, such as the necessity to confront the problems of unemployment, delinquency, health and general poverty
When what the students actually said was


solidarity with the 3000 workers of RCTV

against criminality

against povertyEh? What is your point? Are you saying that those were the only demands and nothing else was spoken of? Are you saying this because you read it somewhere? What source are the demands which you have written here based on? Are you accusing the ICC of distorting the slogans of the students as they appeared in the media? Did it occur to you that they might have actually talked with some of the students or something or maybe have more detailed info on the demands because they live there?

I'm missing responses on the other points by the way.

[Luís Henrique]

Does it say that this is a proletarian insurrection?


The others paraded it as a proletarian insurrection in the budding

See the difference between what I said and what you think I said?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

For those who read Castillian, it might be worth the pain to read this:

http://www.midiaindependente.org/pt/blue/2007/10/400563.shtml

which is a far more respectable left-communist position than that of the ICC.

Luís Henrique

PS. Note that I don't necessarily agree with it.

[Leo]

See the difference between what I said and what you think I said?

Regardless, a proletarian insurrection in the budding is still a "proletarian insurrection", with absolutely much more clarity, unity, close to no bourgeois slogans and illusions and so forth. The strike in Mahala in Egypt or the strike in Dubai even weren't "proletarian insurrections" even in budding, let alone this one being as such. What the text you have quoted meant was that there were "seeds", not that it was budding, that there were elements such as the ones quoted about. Again, if you are trying to show that "people cheered it as a proletarian uprising", even a budding one, and you are quoting this, it does show that there is no basis behind the argument as it is obvious from the very quote you have showed that the author doesn't think that let alone saying that there is a 'budding' proletarian uprising in Venezuela, it is not near, and this movement is not one.

[Entrails Konfetti]

I would be much more worried if they kept posting, for pages after pages, that the repression of the sidoristas is justified, that the workers are counter-revolutionary, that their demands are merely trade-unionists, that they are part of the proletarians aristocracy, etc.

Who is this "they"?

[Luís Henrique]

Who is this "they"?

The Chavistas, obviously.

Luís Henrique

[Entrails Konfetti]

"obviously"

You have some chip on your shoulder.

[Luís Henrique]

"obviously"

You have some chip on your shoulder.

Listen, this was the full paragraph:


beltov made a snide remark about the Chávez supporters here, obviously referring to their difficulty in defending Chávez and his government in this issue. I would be much more worried if they kept posting, for pages after pages, that the repression of the sidoristas is justified, that the workers are counter-revolutionary, that their demands are merely trade-unionists, that they are part of the proletarians aristocracy, etc.

It seems to me reasonable English, not Greek or Hebraic.

So, quite clearly, I would be "more worried if" the Chavistas "kept posting, for pages after pages, that the repression of the sidoristas is justified, that the workers are counter-revolutionary, that" the sidoristas' "demands are merely trade-unionists, that" the sidoristas "are part of the proletarians aristocracy, etc."

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

What the text you have quoted meant was that there were "seeds", not that it was budding,

Ay, caramba. We are going to discuss about proletarian insurrections like about abortions, trying to define the precise limit between fetus and embryo, or seeds and buds?

Luís Henrique

[black magick hustla]

I agree with Luis on this. The ICC would be better if they made a statement retracting themselves from that silly position. Still, I think they have a better position than a lot of communist groups concerning the Chavez situation.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Naturally, in the biological sequence of things a seed occurs before a bud.
Then comes the sapling; the bud; the flower.

You cannot mistake a seed for a bud!

You tried to exaggerate the questionable claim of the article by saying that the ICC said this students movement was the budding of the revolution. Further more, you bring up said article when Left-Communists post about Venezuela. You're trying to stretch things, and paint pictures with brighter and darker colours other than how the subject really appears. I don't know what your intent is. I hope it's not of obtaining pleasure, because there are better things one can amuse theirself with.

[Leo]

Ay, caramba. We are going to discuss about proletarian insurrections like about abortions, trying to define the precise limit between fetus and embryo, or seeds and buds?

Obviously not, but this is what happens when you read things into sentences that aren't really there. The ICC obviously was not thinking there was anything near a proletarian insurrection in Venezuela and your quote proves this in my opinion.

Whatever, think as you wish. I basically completely agree with El Kablamo.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I agree somewhat with LH.

The "Opposition" students that were rambling in the streets had nothing to do with "class war"; they were just a bunch of disgruntled rich white kids being backed by the anti-chavista capital. Just browse the spanish facebook "anti-chavez student groups", they are racist to the core.

I didn't like that article about the ICC, but it was a little error that seems they haven't repeated again. I think the hordes of trots and tankies who flop on their bellies before Chavez are a million times worse.

I was VERY pissed off by the infantile, childish, and grossly reductionist ICC article (and I read this months ago during the referendum lead-up) regarding these bourgeois and petit-bourgeois kids. Stalin Gonzalez is a useful MENSHEVIK idiot to the reactionaries, all for the sake of "being different."

Sorry to the left-communists on this board, but that, coupled with a reading of Gilles Dauve's insightful article on Kautsky and Lenin (which provoked me to find the positives of Lenin being Kautsky's "disciple" as well as the negatives outline in that article), turned off any remaining flirtation with the grossly reductionist left communism for me.

[I'm still interested in discussions regarding Bordiga and the ICC's "centralism," however.]

[Luís Henrique]

[I'm still interested in discussions regarding Bordiga and the ICC's "centralism," however.]

The link I posted above will give you the bordigist position regarding the ICC's take on the White Hands...:


Aquí no se trata de un simple encuadramiento sin principios en favor de un movimiento democrático pequeño-burgués, mas de un acto de fe pequeño-burguesa: ¿Quiénes sino los pequeños burgueses para gemir ante el «fanatismo», la «polarización política» y sobre todo ante la «división de la sociedad»? La sociedad capitalista es una sociedad dividida en clases y, guste o no a los pequeños burgueses que tanto temen ser sus víctimas, esta división no puede ser negada o superada mediante tediosos e interminables «conciliábulos» democráticos.Which is pretty much the truth.

Luís Henrique

[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

[Die Neue Zeit]

What the hell does she have to do with this thread? :glare:

Luis, uno "translation," por favor. :(

[Alf]

Our comrades in Venezuela have looked at the revleft discussion on the student movement and have reaffirmed their original position: Sorry for format problems if moderators can help.....

Reaffirming our position on the student movement in Venezuela

http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2008/apr/students-may-2007

We want to reaffirm our statement entitled: “The student movement in Venezuela: the young try to break free from the false alternative between Chavism and the opposition” 8/7/07

At our public meetings, via e-mails and forums (one of them being Revleft [1] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/venezuela-student-discussion-t74851/index2.html#_ftn1) ), we have received criticism as much from outside as inside Venezuela. We are accused of giving a proletarian character to a petty-bourgeois movement with nothing to do with a real proletarian struggle, or of supporting the children of the rich of the country who oppose the Chavista regime.

We reaffirm our position for the following reasons:

- we explicitly entitled our article “student movement” in order to differentiate this movement, from the mobilisation of the students in the last decades (mainly before the rise of Chavismo) which were characterised by violent confrontations with the police, burning of cars, etc. The May 2007 [2] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/venezuela-student-discussion-t74851/index2.html#_ftn2) movement was marked by a radical difference to those movements: it avoided the sterile confrontations that the leftists and anarchists applaud;

- the most noticeable difference with the past movements was the central role played by the assemblies that took place in various universities at the beginning of the movement. Some secondary school students also participated in the assemblies, where the actions to be taken and how to carry them out were debated. The assemblies were open to participation by lecturers and workers from the universities, and in some students sympathetic to the government participated;

- another important feature of the movement at its beginnings was the effort to distance itself from the politics of polarization that have flourished during the Chávez government. The movement was not only strongly critical of the government; during various events called by the students it also refused to take the word of the leaders of the sectors opposing Chavismo;

- the movement was the real expression of the social discontent that exists in Venezuelan society. The demands of the movement were fundamentally political, denouncing unemployment, poverty, the level of crime, etc [3] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/venezuela-student-discussion-t74851/index2.html#_ftn3). The student movement in some ways was the prelude to more important expressions of social discontent during 2007 and into 2008: at the level of the working class there were struggles (oil, health, railway construction in the central region of the country, tyre makers, SIDOR steel workers, etc); also at the level of the workers in Chavismo's so-called “missions” such as in the Barrio Adentro in the health sector, which demanded fixed contracts and less precarious working; and the population in general (including those sympathetic to Chavismo), confronted with the lack of services, high levels of crime, the lack of housing, the scarcity of food, etc;

- in our position we showed that proletarian factors were expressed within the movement, in part due to the fact that many students at the public and private universities are children of proletarian families, and also many of them are working for formal or informal wages, in order to pay for their studies and to help their families

- those who wanted to deny this factor pretend that the majority of students are from the rich classes of the country. Official statistics disprove this. 75% of university students in the country attended public universities which are free (from long before Chávez came to power) and to which only children from families on lower incomes have access. For reference, at the Central University of Venezuela, the most important in the country (with nearly 13% of all those who graduate in the country’s universities), more than 90% of the students come from the Municipio Libertador which takes in the central-western region of Caracas, where more than 60% of the capital live, the majority on low incomes [4] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/venezuela-student-discussion-t74851/index2.html#_ftn4). An important percentage of the students in this municipality also study in the private universities. Unless they have scholarships, many of their families have gone into debt in order to pay for their studies;

- rather than trying to look at the student movement from the sociological point of view or from that of past student mobilisations, the reality is that it is the economic crisis in Venezuela (as in other countries) that has made the poor poorer, and impoverished the middle layers, and has led a situation where if their children manage to graduate from university, for the most part they are unable to get a job paying more than a qualified worker. This situation has got worse under the Chavista regime and its “Socialism for the 21st Century” which seeks to massively extended poverty and precariousness, through “levelling” society downwards;

- according to the incessant campaigns of the government, based on the typical methods of the left, society is divided by social struggles between “the poor and the rich”[5] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/venezuela-student-discussion-t74851/index2.html#_ftn5), thus hiding the fundamental division of society: between the proletariat and capital. Behind the campaign that says that university students are the children of the rich is the necessity for the government to try and increase its control of the universities in order to put in place its populist project of the massification of higher education, which it has not been able to impose until now because this sector is controlled by opposition forces and because of the discrediting of the government within the universities. It is possible that many of the critics of our position have been influenced by sympathy for Chavismo, a government that condemns and tries to criminalise any movement of genuine protest.

In no way do we deny that the student sector, due to its characteristics, is strong penetrated by petty bourgeois ideology. However no social movement, including by the workers, is free from the penetration by bourgeois or petty bourgeois ideology, which in Venezuela is expressed through the poison of polarization between fractions of capital, which is aimed at derailing genuine discontent towards capitalist aims. The future development of student movements and other social movements will depend upon their capacity to unite with workers' struggles.

Faced with the absence of widespread workers’ struggles in Venezuela (though we are seeing the beginnings of this) the movement of the students was diluted into the bourgeois confrontation between the government and opposition, into the choice between declaring itself in favour or against the constitutional reform proposed by Chávez in 2007. Today, various leaders of the movement are candidates in the coming mayoral and governorship elections to be held in October 2008.

Nevertheless, this does not negate the characteristics that the movement had in May 2007, nor will it stop the development of new movements in this sector, since the economic and social crisis is not only continuing but worsening at an accelerating pace.

Internacionalismo, Section of the International Communist Current in Venezuela

1 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/venezuela-student-discussion-t74851/index2.html#_ftnref1) See http://www.revleft.com/vb/venezuela-student-discussion

2 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/venezuela-student-discussion-t74851/index2.html#_ftnref2) Before we published our position, a leaflet in support of the movement was distributed by a sympathizer of the ICC, a student of the Central University of Venezuela, which we have published on our website: http://en.internationalism.org/wr/307/ven-students-leaflet

3 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/venezuela-student-discussion-t74851/index2.html#_ftnref3) The opposition media highlighted more the demands against the closure of the RCTV television channel or for freedom of expression; whilst the official media criminalised the movement, accusing it of being promoted by the “oligarchy” and “imperialism”

4 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/venezuela-student-discussion-t74851/index2.html#_ftnref4) According to the figures of the Planning Office of the University Sector in 200; see www.cnu.gov.ve (http://www.cnu.gov.ve).

5 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/venezuela-student-discussion-t74851/index2.html#_ftnref5) One has to ask in which universities do the children of the Bolivarian bourgeoisie study. Many of them for certain study in the best private universities in the country and abroad, faced with the progressive deterioration of education in the public universities.

[Luís Henrique]

Luis, uno "translation," por favor. :(


Aquí no se trata de un simple encuadramiento sin principios en favor de un movimiento democrático pequeño-burgués, mas de un acto de fe pequeño-burguesa: ¿Quiénes sino los pequeños burgueses para gemir ante el «fanatismo», la «polarización política» y sobre todo ante la «división de la sociedad»? La sociedad capitalista es una sociedad dividida en clases y, guste o no a los pequeños burgueses que tanto temen ser sus víctimas, esta división no puede ser negada o superada mediante tediosos e interminables «conciliábulos» democráticos.

Una tradución:


This is not simply an unprincipled tailing of a democratic petty-bourgeois movement, but a declaration of petty-bourgeois faith: Who else than the petty bourgeoisie to whine about "fanaticism", "political polarisation", and, above all, about the "division of society"? Capitalist society is a class society, and, wheter the petty-bourgeois who so much fear being victims of such division like it or not, it cannot be denied or overcame through boring and endless democratic cabals.

Luís Henrique

[Jens]

The ICC's section in Venezuela has just posted this explanation of their position.
I'm not allowed to post this link because I have not posted enough - that's a dumb idea:cursing:
But you can find the article on the front page of the SPanish site.
I can't help thinking that the idea that "students are just a lot of rich kids" is a bit out of date. In Venezuela as elsewhere, students may not come from the favelas but they come from what in other times we would have called the skilled working class as well as the petty bourgeoisie.