Chavez re-nationalises SIDOR – historic victory for the workers

[Guest1]

Chavez re-nationalises SIDOR – historic victory for the workers (http://www.marxist.com/chavez-renationalises-sidor.htm)
By Jorge Martin - www.marxist.com (http://www.marxist.com)
Wednesday, 09 April 2008

At 1.22am Venezuelan time on Wednesday, April 9th, Venezuelan vice-president Ramon Carrizales announced the decision of president Chávez to renationalise the giant steel plant SIDOR located in the southern state of Bolivar. The decision was taken as the Argentinean-Italian multinational group Techint (the majority shareholder of SIDOR) refused to make concessions to the workers in the collective bargaining agreement.

http://www.marxist.com/images/stories/venezuela/sidor_respression.jpg
National Guard repression

The workers of SIDOR have been struggling for more than 15 months fighting for improvements in wages, conditions and health and safety in the collective bargaining agreement. The main points of contention were: 1) wage increase, where the company offered very little and wanted to spread any increase over a 30-month period; 2) the question of subcontracting, where the workers were demanding that all subcontracted workers (9,000 out of a total workforce of 15,000) should be incorporated into the main workforce, and 3) that there should be a substantial increase in the pensions of retired workers who were receiving less than the minimum wage.

SIDOR was privatised in 1997 under the government of Caldera, when the former guerrilla Teodoro Petkoff (now a prominent opposition leader) was in charge of privatisations. SIDOR is now owned by Argentinean-Italian multinational Techint which has made multi-million profits on the back of massive overexploitation of the workers which has resulted in a marked increase in deaths and accidents at work. José "Acarigua" Rodriguez, leader of the workers' union SUTISS, described the ten years of privatisation as years of "humiliation and ill treatment on the part of the multinational, which has outraged the workers and the country" and blamed Techint for the 18 workers who have died in the plant in accidents.

http://www.marxist.com/images/stories/venezuela/sidor_worker_wounded.jpg
Wounded workers

When Chavez made a call to "nationalise all that was privatised", in January 2007, the workers responded with spontaneous walkouts and by raising the Venezuelan flag over the SIDOR installations. They were demanding the nationalisation of SIDOR. Finally, after many negotiations and pressure from the Argentinean government of Kirchner an agreement was reached between Techint and the Venezuelan government. The company was to sell to the national market at preferential prices and in exchange there was not going to be any nationalisation. But this was an agreement that could not last. Throughout the 15 months of the collective bargaining negotiations the company has maintained a provocative attitude. Finally, the workers' patience run out and they started a series of stoppages in January, February and March.

http://www.marxist.com/images/stories/venezuela/sidor_worker_wounded1.jpg

What was the response of the Ministry of Labour? First of all they tried to impose binding arbitration on the workers. Then the National Guard was sent to brutally repress the workers on March 14th during an 80-hour strike. Several workers were arrested, including union leader Acarigua, and many were injured during the attack. The National Guard acted in a particularly vicious manner, damaging the workers' cars and other property. The workers, the masses and the whole region responded with a clear class instinct, organizing solidarity meetings and pickets, threatening strikes in other plants, etc.

http://www.marxist.com/images/stories/venezuela/sidor_worker_wounded2.jpg

This incident was the most serious clash between workers and the National Guard during the Chávez government, even worse than when the Aragua police blocked Sanitarios Maracay workers from attending a Freteco demonstration in Caracas (http://www.marxist.com/repression-sanitarios-maracay-workers240407-4.htm). The workers denounced the fact that the local commander of the National Guard was in close contact with the company management and basically was acting on their orders. Here we see one of the most important challenges facing the Venezuelan revolution. The old state apparatus, created and perfected over 200 hundred years to serve the interests of the ruling class, although weakened by the revolution, is still basically intact, and it is still attempting to serve the same interests.
As a Bolivarian MP for Guyana said: "I consider these abuses to be a long way from the revolutionary principles promoted by the President of the Republic." El Zabayar, who came out publicly for the nationalisation of SIDOR further explained that, "There are sectors within the state that play at wearing down the government, using governmental authorities to assume a pro-bosses attitude". This is precisely the problem: the state apparatus remains largely the same, and a capitalist state cannot be used to carry out a socialist revolution.

Even after this brutal repression, the Ministry of Labour (which also played a dreadful role in the Sanitarios Maracay struggle), insisted on calling a referendum of the workers to make them accept the company's proposal. José Melendez, another leader of SUTISS, harshly criticised the role of the Ministry: "They accuse us of being troublemakers for rejecting their ballot. More than once we have shown our support for the revolution, but this does not mean we are going to allow the Minister of Labour to follow a counter-revolutionary and anti-worker policy, which, at the end of the day, only benefits the right wing." And he added: "The Minister says that we are against the process that we are counter-revolutionary, but the truth is that the one who is damaging president Chávez's reputation is the Minister, the one who is acting in favour of the right wing is the Minister, by acting as a spokesperson for the company".

The workers remained united and correctly opposed this ballot and called their own on April 3rd, with two options: 1) to accept the company's offer, 2) to mandate the union to continue talks. The overwhelming majority of the workers rejected SIDOR's offer, with 3338 voting against and only 65 in favour.

http://www.marxist.com/images/stories/venezuela/sidor_demo2.jpg
March to the Bolivarian University

Then, on April 4th, the workers went on strike again and marched to the Bolivarian University in Bolivar, where president Chávez was attending a graduation ceremony and demanded to be heard. As a result of this pressure, president Chávez intervened in a live TV programme on April 6th, to take a position (full video here (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4zlq3_presidente-chavez-se-pronuncia-sobr_news)). Among other things he recalled that the SIDOR workers and others from the basic industries in Guyana opposed the bosses' lock-out in 2002, "even when they received death threats, and even when they cut off gas supplies from Anaco, they marched to Anaco and clashed with the police". He added that the conditions of the workers were "horrible" and that the "revolutionary government has to demand from any company, national or multinational, Latin American, Russian or from any part of the world, to abide by Venezuelan laws", referring to the law passed on May Day last year which outlaws subcontracting. He also announced that he had instructed the Vice-president Ramon Carrizales to meet with SUTISS leader Acarigua and then with the company to try to settle the issue.

He added that his government was one which, "respected Marxism, Marxist tendencies and the Marxist method" and that it was a "pro-workers' government" which "would know how to take the necessary measures". He explained that he always tries to "look for agreement, negotiation and so on, but in relation to SIDOR, as of yesterday, I said enough is enough". Chávez also added that his intervention was the result of the workers going to the graduation meeting in Bolivar and getting the information directly to him. He added that he had had harsh words with the regional governor over the repression of the National Guard against the workers, and that he had also talked to the commander of the National Guard to remind him of "old instructions to take care of the workers".

This intervention by Chávez through the vice-president was in fact a slap in the face to the regional governor and above all to the Minister of Labour Rivero. Their authority was superseded and the government sided clearly with the workers. The company, which until that moment had said that they would not talk to the workers again, agreed to a new meeting.
A three party meeting between the company, the union and the vice-president took place on Tuesday 8th, in which the company made minor concessions. Just after midnight, the vice-president Carrizales, who had said that the meeting could not end without an agreement, asked the company one last time if they were not prepared to make a counter-offer to the union's final offer on wages, and when the company refused he asked this to be recorded in the minutes. He then stepped out, called president Chávez and came back to the meeting to announce the re-nationalisation of SIDOR.

http://www.marxist.com/images/stories/venezuela/sidor_demo3.jpg

Thousands of workers immediately started to celebrate a victory that they did not even believe was possible. In fact the leadership of the union had declared a few hours before that after signing the collective bargaining agreement they would then continue the campaign for the nationalisation of SIDOR.

This is yet another turning point in the Venezuelan revolution and a clear indication of the direction it should take. This is not a small bankrupt company that has been taken into public ownership, but the country's only supplier of steel and Latin America's fourth largest producer. This decision is likely to provoke a backlash on the part of the multinational and also on the part of the Argentinean government which in the past has put a lot of pressure on Chávez in defence of Techint. The Venezuelan revolution and its supporters abroad, particularly in Argentina, must be ready to withstand this pressure and launch a campaign in defence of this nationalisation. The workers of SIDOR should take immediate steps to implement workers' control in order to prevent the company from engaging in any kind of sabotage, seize the installations, control the stocks and above all they should proceed to open the account books of the company.

The issue of compensation will now arise. The company will probably demand an outrageous sum of money. The best way to settle this is precisely by opening the accounts of the company. If you calculate the amount that was originally paid by the multinational (very little), the investment they have made in the plant (very little), and then you deduct the profits they have made in the last 10 years (a lot), you will easily reach the conclusion that they are not actually entitled to any compensation at all.

http://www.marxist.com/images/stories/venezuela/sidor_demo1.jpg

More importantly, this nationalisation comes mainly as a result of the pressure of the workers in struggle, who were also encouraged by Chávez's recent announcement of the nationalisation of the whole of cement production in the country. This is a mobilised and aroused workforce which will now demand workers' control. In previous nationalisations, including the recent one of a dairy plant, Chávez has insisted that the workers must set up "Workers' Councils" or "Socialist Councils". These must be used by the workers and the union SUTISS to exercise workers' control and management. As Venezuelan workers know only too well, nationalisation in itself does not guarantee the interests of the workers and the Venezuelan people. After all, PDVSA was for more than 25 years a state-owned company and a massive bureaucracy developed which responded to the interests of the oligarchy and the oil multinationals.

Bolivar is one of the most important concentrations of the industrial working class in Venezuela, a decisive factor in the revolution. The victory of the SIDOR workers will also encourage workers in other basic industries in the region to go forward and struggle for democratic workers' control.

The re-nationalisation of SIDOR is another step forward in the right direction. In the last few months, the oligarchy has stepped up its campaign of sabotage of the economy, particularly the food distribution sector. At the same time imperialism has increased its provocations, threatening to put Venezuela on the list of countries that "harbour terrorism". It is now time to take decisive steps forward by nationalising the fundamental levers of the economy under the democratic control of the workers and finally completing the revolution.

[RedFlagComrade]

Chavez=legend
The last true communist leader now that Castro's gone??And he took power bloodlessly!Legend

[Dimentio]

Give the factory to the workers instead and I will applaud it.

[R_P_A_S]

Chavez=legend
The last true communist leader now that Castro's gone??And he took power bloodlessly!Legend

you don't see anything wrong with that? "communist leader"?:(

[Luís Henrique]

Give the factory to the workers instead and I will applaud it.

To put it simply, the workers do not want the factory; they want it to be nationalised.

Luís Henrique

[Ultra-Violence]

Another reason why i support chavez great man.
the struggle continues...

[mykittyhasaboner]

what benefits would nationalizing the factory give to the workers?

[AGITprop]

what benefits would nationalizing the factory give to the workers?

Better wages.

No oppressive boss telling them what to do.

Possible democratic control of the workplace.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Someone merge the threads, please.

[KC]

No oppressive boss telling them what to do.

This all depends on what is meant by nationalization.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Better wages.

No oppressive boss telling them what to do.

Possible democratic control of the workplace.

Didn't you even read your own article, where it says that a socialist revolution cannot take place through a capitalist state.

Naturally, the corollary to that sentance is that their boss is the capitalist state.

This is using your theory, not mine.

This article is too soft on the Union Bosses, like they didn't agree with the Minister of Labour on the refferendum "under certain conditions"

Further more, we don't really hear if the workers original demands were met. We just hear it's nationalised.

[chimx]

This is certainly a surprising turn around to the state firing life ammunition at SIDOR workers just a month ago.

I believe the union had been fighting for a wage that was something like $32/hr, and the government mediation tried to get them to compromise at something in the mid-20s. While I'm sure they'll get their raise, I wonder which it will be.

[Marsella]

$32 dollars an hour (US Dollars?), in Venezuela?!

That's like twice what I earn. :(

[black magick hustla]

a day, not an hour

[Marsella]

a day, not an hour

I thought there was something fishy.

[Herman]

I guess that one can't simply acknowledge a good thing when he sees it...

[Guest1]

I guess that one can't simply acknowledge a good thing when he sees it...
Seriously.

People were using the behaviour of certain sections of the state in attacking SIDOR workers, and here Chavez steps in, pushes them aside, and nationalizes the company because they won't cede to the workers demands.

You'd think people would at least agree with the nationalization, taking it out of the hands of those bosses, and agree that Chavez struck back against those elements in the labour ministry who insisted on sending in the National Guard.

[Guerrilla22]

The Labor Minister should have been sacked over the Labor Ministry's actions.

[black magick hustla]

Seriously.

People were using the behaviour of certain sections of the state in attacking SIDOR workers, and here Chavez steps in, pushes them aside, and nationalizes the company because they won't cede to the workers demands.

You'd think people would at least agree with the nationalization, taking it out of the hands of those bosses, and agree that Chavez struck back against those elements in the labour ministry who insisted on sending in the National Guard.

So he renationalized the factory, which was nationalized also decades before. I think it is good that the workers were able to defend their living standards. I am not going to clap and say Chavez is part of a revolutionary government though.

[Devrim]

what benefits would nationalizing the factory give to the workers?Better wages.

No oppressive boss telling them what to do.

Possible democratic control of the workplace.

I was a postman for just over five years, and I don't like to be the one who has to break it to you, but we did have 'oppressive bosses' telling us what to do. In fact we even had to take industrial action to get one manager removed.

The point about wages is questionable, the one about democratic control is ridiculous, but the one about not having 'oppressive bosses telling you what to do' is completely absurd.

Devrim

[Herman]

I was a postman for just over five years, and I don't like to be the one who has to break it to you, but we did have 'oppressive bosses' telling us what to do. In fact we even had to take industrial action to get one manager removed.

The point about wages is questionable, the one about democratic control is ridiculous, but the one about not having 'oppressive bosses telling you what to do' is completely absurd.

It seems like the workers of SIDOR disagree with you!

http://www.aporrea.org/imagenes/2008/03/marcha_sidoristas.jpg


Caracas, 09 de abril de 2008 / Trabajadores sidoristas y el sindicato Sutiss expresaron su total júbilo por la nacionalización de la empresa siderúrgica “Ternium-Sidor”, luego de que el vicepresidente de la República, Ramón Carrizález, hiciera el anuncio en horas de la madrugada de este miércoles, según José Meléndez, miembro del sindicato Sutiss, através de un contacto telefónico con el programa En Confianza, que transmite Venezolana de Televisión.

“El pueblo venezolano no tiene idea del júbilo que tenemos los trabajadores por el pronunciamiento (del vicepresidente de la República). A la una de la mañana estaba en la mesa de discusión nuestro contrato colectivo, pero la empresa de manera arbitraria dijo que no tenía más posición y trató se seguir creando conflicto”, sostuvo Meléndez.

Destacó la posición de Ramón Carrizález ante la empresa. "Fue importante la postura del vicepresidente, hombre al que no le tembló el pulso para decir con seriedad y responsabilidad a la transnacional que la empresa pasaba a manos del Estado venezolano".

"Esta decisión es motivo de júbilo y alegría porque nos quitamos diez años de esclavitud de una transnacional que lo que ha hecho es distribuir la riqueza entre un pequeño grupo, y el trabajador venezolano cada vez más empobrecido", enfatizó.

“Esta empresa va a salir a flote (…) vamos a producir con mucho entusiasmo”, puntualizó Meléndez"

[Devrim]

It seems like the workers of SIDOR disagree with you!

What? Do you think that these workers believe that all the bosses are nice in a nationalised industry? It doesn't say anything like that in the quote you have provided.

Devrim

[Herman]

What? Do you think that these workers believe that all the bosses are nice in a nationalised industry? It doesn't say anything like that in the quote you have provided.

http://www.aporrea.org/trabajadores/n112169.html

Watch the video. You'll be a little surprised.

[KC]

People were using the behaviour of certain sections of the state in attacking SIDOR workers, and here Chavez steps in, pushes them aside, and nationalizes the company because they won't cede to the workers demands.

You'd think people would at least agree with the nationalization

What does "nationalization" mean in this case, though? Does it mean simply changing the private bosses for state bosses, giving workers control, or what? I can't support something I know nothing about.

I'm not saying I disagree with it or will criticize it; I just don't know enough about it to have an informed position.

[spartan]

What does "nationalization" mean in this case, though?

Basically it is put under state control and the state employs people to run the Nationalised industry like a manager.

So to put it even more basically the state replaces the corporation and seeing how in this case the state in question is headed by a Socialist this Nationalisation is therefore good news and is a step in the right direction.

[Luís Henrique]

Didn't you even read your own article, where it says that a socialist revolution cannot take place through a capitalist state.

Naturally, the corollary to that sentance is that their boss is the capitalist state.

And if the company was handed to the workers, the corollary would be that they would be their own bosses. You can't have socialism on one factory, much less than on one country.

Luís Henrique

[Devrim]

Watch the video. You'll be a little surprised.
I don't speak Spanish well enough. I could read the article basically, but I can't understand a video.
Devrim

[Entrails Konfetti]

And if the company was handed to the workers, the corollary would be that they would be their own bosses. You can't have socialism on one factory, much less than on one country.


Yep, socialism has to be a world system.

[Luís Henrique]

Yep, socialism has to be a world system.

And the workers demanded the nationalisation of the company, as there is no way to achieve its worldisation as of now.

Luís Henrique

[Entrails Konfetti]

It seems like the workers of SIDOR disagree with you!

The struggle ain't over, they'll demand more in the future. Bosses are always oppressive.

[Luís Henrique]

The struggle ain't over, they'll demand more in the future. Bosses are always oppressive.

Evidently.

The fact that they have earned this victory will make them more confident in demanding more.

Luís Henrique

[Entrails Konfetti]

And the workers demanded the nationalisation of the company, as there is no way to achieve its worldisation as of now.


Um, there is no proof showing how nationalisation evolves into world socialism.

Then you're going to say "I should stay with the sentiment of the workers". The workers are under the hypnosis and hysteria of the bourgeoisie. It is our task to stay out the hiysteria, break them away from it and help thyem understand that the current system is not in their interests. What happens when we stay with the hypnotised masses? We end up ralling for the a national-bourgeoisie during a war.

[Luís Henrique]

So he renationalized the factory, which was nationalized also decades before. I think it is good that the workers were able to defend their living standards. I am not going to clap and say Chavez is part of a revolutionary government though.

He isn't. This is a victory of the workers, not of Chávez.

Luís Henrique

[Entrails Konfetti]

If it is a victory for the workers, Luis. It's unclear how this movement for nationalisation was brought about, was it the union leaders and the state who pushed for it, or was it with conjunction of the entire working body of SIDOR?

Yes, this will help them realise their strength, but there's a difference between you and I. You go on to praise Chavez and the "revolutionary" state.

[Luís Henrique]

Um, there is no proof showing how nationalisation evolves into world socialism.

Then you're going to say "I should stay with the sentiment of the workers". The workers are under the hypnosis and hysteria of the bourgeoisie. It is our task to stay out the hiysteria, break them away from it and help thyem understand that the current system is not in their interests. What happens when we stay with the hypnotised masses? We end up ralling for the a national-bourgeoisie during a war.

And so you oppose the nationalisation, and support Terniun-Sidor...

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Yes, this will help them realise their strength, but there's a difference between you and I. You go on to praise Chavez and the "revolutionary" state.

No. I have stated, quite clearly, this is a victory of the wokers, not of Chávez.

But evidently, it doesn't matter to you, to whom any political action is a treachery.

Luís Henrique

[Entrails Konfetti]

You're really bad at being a spin-doctor.

[Entrails Konfetti]

No. I have stated, quite clearly, this is a victory of the wokers, not of Chávez.

Give me specifics, not some Trot article.


But evidently, it doesn't matter to you, to whom any political action is a treachery.

Yo' mama.

[Leo]

And so you oppose the nationalisation, and support Ternium-Sidor...Does opposing nationalization mean supporting Ternium-Sidor? Do you think it is not possible to oppose both private and state capital, or oppose both foreign capital and national capital?

Or , perhaps a better question: do you actually honestly believe that El Kablamo "supports Ternium-Sidor"? What on earth is the point of that comment?

[Entrails Konfetti]

I bet he knows our positions, he just wants to twist them into something else-- for whatever reason.

[PRC-UTE]

If it is a victory for the workers, Luis. It's unclear how this movement for nationalisation was brought about, was it the union leaders and the state who pushed for it, or was it with conjunction of the entire working body of SIDOR?

Yes, this will help them realise their strength, but there's a difference between you and I. You go on to praise Chavez and the "revolutionary" state.

Here's the entry by Luís posted just above yours:

"He isn't [a revolutionary]. This is a victory of the workers, not of Chávez"

[Entrails Konfetti]

I also meant the plural "you".

Meaning people who are praising Chavez, and the State.

So, Luis doesn't go onto to praise the state, okay I realise that. It still stands that he accussed me of supporting a different part of capital over an other, I don't know why he did. Strange.

[PRC-UTE]

I also meant the plural "you".

Meaning people who are praising Chavez, and the State.

So, Luis doesn't go onto to praise the state, okay I realise that. It still stands that he accussed me of supporting a different part of capital over an other, I don't know why he did. Strange.

Oh, I see what you mean by plural you.

well I think, don't know, but think he is saying that there are two clear possibilities in this situation- that either the factory is nationalised, or the privately owned factory continues to abuse the workers. And since these are the only two options available at this moment, if you do not choose one, you choose the other by default.

It's important to stress that while this is a victory for the workers, no-one I am aware of is claiming this is a revolutionary situation.

[Luís Henrique]

Give me specifics, not some Trot article.

What specifics? What do I have to do with Trot articles?


Yo' mama.

My "mama" is a 70+ years old lady that has nothing to do with the fact that you are an opportunist spontaneist. Keep her out of the discussion, please.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Does opposing nationalization mean supporting Ternium-Sidor? Do you think it is not possible to oppose both private and state capital, or oppose both foreign capital and national capital?

You guys are really going to make me hate the word "both".

Yes, I do think it is possible to oppose private and State capital, or national and foreign capital. No, I don't think that in the actual situation of class struggle in Venezuela and in the world, it is possible to that plant to be anything else than a private company or a State company.


Or , perhaps a better question: do you actually honestly believe that El Kablamo "supports Ternium-Sidor"? What on earth is the point of that comment?The point is the opportunism of the whole position.

While it seemed that the sidoristas were locked in an impossible conundrum, that would end with the plant being taking back by the police or the army, thus "unmasking" Chávez, you were all for the workers. As the workers won, you turn away from them, accusing the movement of being manipulated by State or unions, or both.

Just because they deprived you of the bloodbath you were dreaming of.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Oh, I see what you mean by plural you.

I don't, and El Kablamo is lying.

Here is the context of this mysterious "you":


If it is a victory for the workers, Luis. It's unclear how this movement for nationalisation was brought about, was it the union leaders and the state who pushed for it, or was it with conjunction of the entire working body of SIDOR?

Yes, this will help them realise their strength, but there's a difference between you and I. You go on to praise Chavez and the "revolutionary" state.

He was addressing me and no one else. I made the point that it was a victory of the workers, and I made the point that it would embolden them. It is evident that "you" here refers to me, not to other posters. So he said that, while he agreed with me that it would help them realise their strength, he thinks that the difference between him, El Kablamo, and me, Luís Henrique, is that I, Luís Henrique, praise Chávez and the "revolutionary" State, and that he, El Kablamo, doesn't.

Luís Henrique

[Entrails Konfetti]

What specifics? What do I have to do with Trot articles?



With this article in mind; that doesn't say how Sidor became nationalized-- it doesn't say who exactly called for it, how it was decided if the workers original demands were met.

With all this in mind, you say it's a victory of the workers-- I want to see specifics. I already said:

If it is a victory for the workers, Luis. It's unclear how this movement for nationalisation was brought about, was it the union leaders and the state who pushed for it, or was it with conjunction of the entire working body of SIDOR?


But you pushed that off, and only replied to the second half of that message, because you don't like my lously use of grammar.

Personally, I'll say even if they're demands were met, the workers are not free from capital. Yes they saw what they can do in unity of action, but they got ways to go until liberation. We can talk of strength growing, but we can't talk of victory until the
workers seize power of the world, and are the dominant class.


My "mama" is a 70+ years old lady that has nothing to do with the fact that you are an opportunist spontaneist. Keep her out of the discussion, please.

Yo granmama. You're mudslinging is so meaningless, you want a reply to your silly provocations. Okay, an equal reply to your silly mudslinging, with meaningless phrases from the 1960's. Suddenly I'm an opportunist spontaneist-- I'll address that later.

Honestly, you'd say anything, really. :lol:


Yes, I do think it is possible to oppose private and State capital, or national and foreign capital. No, I don't think that in the actual situation of class struggle in Venezuela and in the world, it is possible to that plant to be anything else than a private company or a State company.

It is, or it isn't possible to be state or private controlled-- please clarify.



While it seemed that the sidoristas were locked in an impossible conundrum, that would end with the plant being taking back by the police or the army, thus "unmasking" Chávez, you were all for the workers. As the workers won, you turn away from them, accusing the movement of being manipulated by State or unions, or both

We didn't turn away from them, we knew that they weren't socialist conscious yet, and this event along with agitation could only help them grow socialist-conscious. See I said, AGITATION, workers will not naturally come to socialism. It's not a biological instict wired in their pysche at birth.

I'm the opportunist?
Okay, so the National Guard was called in by the Minister or Labour, you, Luis Henrique, said you thought it was strange that this minister wasn't known as part of the opposition, that there was in fact a minister who was of the opposition, but they weren't the labour minister. You, thought it was strange that Chavez seemed to have no control of the national guard or have his ministers in check. This man, who supposebly has the government centralised around him cannot recall the National Guard.

Too much fighting went on for a good period of time for a president to do something, then finally, he steps in there calls off the guard, chastizes the minister, and nationalises sidor. You don't think the minister is acting as a fall-guy?

You accuse us of abandoning the workers, because they are manipulated. No we are for their liberation from capital, and it will take us having to help them shake off the bourgeois ideology. This has an effect on people, its a very arduous process to rid the workers of it. Yet, you say, here it's ripe and there it's unripe-- to be ripened they must be nationalised, ect ect-- without any explaintion for you're penchant. Like nationalisation is part of the process to socialism.

We are for the workers, but we are against the hypnosis of capital, You think their hypnosis can be manipulated. While we think they can only awaken from it.

Furthermore,
I wonder would you be against workers struggling to be privatized because the Privateer said they'd pay better wages and conditions?

We'd be against it because, we're against capital. Sometimes having a Militant Communist position isn't popular, but it has to be kept as both Communist and Militant.


Just because they deprived you of the bloodbath you were dreaming of.


Here you go talking shit again.

Sounds like you are for the state trying to reconcile the workers.

I don't want a blood bath either, but I know that the state will come down on workers when they push for their own interests, and it will be necessary for the workers to defend themselves.

You never say what your vision of socialism is, and how to get there.

[KC]

Luis, in what context has this nationalization been implemented? I think we can both agree that nationalization in and of itself isn't "progressive" or a "victory for the workers" and that in order to determine whether or not it actually is progressive one must look at the context of the nationalization and what it actually means in this instance.

It looks as if this was a progressive move, as you have stated, and I am inclined to think that it is, but I would also like to see some more information as to the context and as to the opinions of the workers it affects before I actually go one way or another.

[Cheung Mo]

The Labour Minister and those in the National Guard who struggled for the repression of the workers deserve an old fashioned public hangings, as do the company officials who imposed 10 years of misery on them.

[abrupt]

This is a pretty big deal, congrats to the workers and Venezuela.

[Luís Henrique]

Personally, I'll say even if they're demands were met, the workers are not free from capital.

Evidently they are not free from capital. Since when winning a wage rise, or even getting to oust their employeres, frees workers from capital?


Yes they saw what they can do in unity of action, but they got ways to go until liberation. We can talk of strength growing, but we can't talk of victory until the workers seize power of the world, and are the dominant class.Of course we can talk of victory; it is a partial victory.

The workers of Sidor cannot seize world power, or become the dominant class, alone.


Yo granmama. You're mudslinging is so meaningless, you want a reply to your silly provocations.I didn't bring your mother into discussion; you keep mine outside of it as well. You may dislike my arguments, you may even be offended by them. But they are, all of them, of a political nature. Your resort to petty name calling shows only one thing: your despair, because you run out of political arguments.


It is, or it isn't possible to be state or private controlled-- please clarify.Venezuela is a capitalist society. As long as it is a capitalist society, Sidor is going to be either a private company or a State company. Yes, it could also be a cooperative "owned" by workers, but I would still call that a private company.

Only if the capitalist State is overthrown it can become something different. This is the reason why your "oppose both" line is flawed: you believe that the Sidor workers should have demanded the end of capitalism, and the socialisation of means of production. This is what "oppose both" means - unless you are talking of concentrating in the wage demands, and refraining from discussing nationalisation or privatisation; something that I would call "oppose none" rather than "oppose both".

But you know as well as I do, and the Sidor workers also know, that a strike in a single factory cannot overthrow the capitalist State; so what you are talking about is to make an impossible demand, which would ensure defeat - and, in your distorted "strategy", unmask Chávez, and bring victory by means of defeat.


We didn't turn away from them,Yes, you do.

You brought them into discussion, with a clear intent: to show that there was a confrontation between workers and Chávez regime. So at that point you - correctly - underlined it was a legitimate workers' movement.

Since it ended in a way different from what you were expecting, you are now wondering whether the goals of the movement were decided by the workers, or by the unions, or even by the State. This is a betrayal.


we knew that they weren't socialist conscious yet, and this event along with agitation could only help them grow socialist-conscious. See I said, AGITATION, workers will not naturally come to socialism. It's not a biological instict wired in their pysche at birth.Of course it is not biological instinct, it is class interest. Either the workers have an interest in overthrowing the capitalist system, and can understand such interest via democratic discussion and daily struggle, or the phrase "revolutionary class" has no meaning.

You believe your pathetic petty bourgeois organisation needs to show the way to workers; if workers decide their ways without bowing to you, they are not "socialist conscious" and are under "bourgeois hysteria" or "hypnosis".

And of course, you said "agitation", even in capital letters, but you in fact meant "propaganda"; I doubt you would be able to agitate anything among workers like those of Sidor, and I also doubt you can make the difference between "agitation" and "propaganda".


I'm the opportunist?You sure are.


Okay, so the National Guard was called in by the Minister or Labour, you, Luis Henrique, said you thought it was strange that this minister wasn't known as part of the opposition, that there was in fact a minister who was of the opposition, but they weren't the labour minister. You, thought it was strange that Chavez seemed to have no control of the national guard or have his ministers in check. This man, who supposebly has the government centralised around him cannot recall the National Guard.What I said was very clear: that the labour minister - or the state governor - were not oppositionists, but part of Chávez political apparat. I never said anything about recalling the National Guard, as I don't know Venezolan political process well enough to pontificate about it. Here, in Brazil, there are State repressive organs that are under the control of state governors, and the President of the Republic cannot, in fact, recall them. It is possible that the same is true in Venezuela, but I don't know.

When someone brought the idea that the state governor of Bolivar (where Sidor is) was an oppositionist, I immediately retorted that I didn't believe that, because the only oppositionist governor, to my knowledge, was that of Zulía.

So stop fabricating things about my posts, or confusing them with other people's posts.


Too much fighting went on for a good period of time for a president to do something, then finally, he steps in there calls off the guard, chastizes the minister, and nationalises sidor. You don't think the minister is acting as a fall-guy?You mean that the whole epysode was a farce, intended to highlight Chávez role as a paternalist leader? Yes, it is possible; if so, I think it was overplayed, he took too much time to intervene for it to work that way. I would argue that he comes out of this weakened, not fortified.

I earnestly thing a different thing happened. That the government had no intention of nationalising Sidor (if for no other reason, for fear of alienating Argentina, whose President, Christina Kirchner, was regularly pressing Venezuela to not do it), but came to realise that insisting in such line would harm their support among the workers, on which they depend too much. So they decided to make a U-turn; evidently they are trying to capitalise as much as they can out of it, it is something governments do. And, judging by the "Viva Chávez" reactions here in revleft, they might have some success in it.

However, it was the first time Chávez actively confronted a working class movement, and showed his government is capable to shoot workers to protect itself. I think in the whole it was much more a defeat for Chávez than a victory.


You accuse us of abandoning the workers, because they are manipulated.Now you are not even asking if they are so, you are directly stating it...


No we are for their liberation from capital, and it will take us having to help them shake off the bourgeois ideology.I hope not, because your "help" is much more probably going to harm them than any other thing.


This has an effect on people, its a very arduous process to rid the workers of it. Yet, you say, here it's ripe and there it's unripe-- to be ripened they must be nationalised, ect ect-- without any explaintion for you're penchant. Like nationalisation is part of the process to socialism.No, class struggle is part of the process to socialism, and partial victories in class struggle are part of the process to socialism.


We are for the workers, but we are against the hypnosis of capital,You prefer your own hypnosis, but you haven't the means to impose it on workers. No leftist organisation has; capital has all the conditions to keep such hypnosis, unless workers can shake it off themselves, through struggle and democratic discussion.


You think their hypnosis can be manipulated. While we think they can only awaken from it.No, that's not the difference between us. You think they will awake from it through your propaganda; I believe they will awake from it throught the practical experience of class struggle.

I must admit I was wrong in calling you a spontaneist; you are a vulgar vanguardist instead.


Furthermore, I wonder would you be against workers struggling to be privatized because the Privateer said they'd pay better wages and conditions?Private companies are directly driven by the search of profit, so it is quite unlikely that they would propose better wages or conditions; if they did, workers who have some class struggle experience would probably see it as an unreliable promise.

But, yes, if there were sufficient guarantees (which seems way unlikely) that the privatisation would increase wages, reduce firings, and improve conditions in general, why not? The only objection I can think of is that, if the State is such a bad employer that a private company would be better, such State cannot be trusted to enforce the dealings between workers and company as well.


We'd be against it because, we're against capital. Sometimes having a Militant Communist position isn't popular, but it has to be kept as both Communist and Militant.Evidently. Nobody is talking about being popular. The appropriate points should always be made. Propaganda must always take place. The repressive role of the State must always be underlined. Analysis of the situation must always be discussed with workers. Nobody denies that.


I don't want a blood bath either, but I know that the state will come down on workers when they push for their own interests, and it will be necessary for the workers to defend themselves.Evidently. For workers to be able to effectively defend themselves against the State, it takes more than a company on strike.


You never say what your vision of socialism is, and how to get there.Want a blueprint? I have none.

The way to socialism is class struggle, proletarian independent class struggle to overthrow the capitalist State.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Luis, in what context has this nationalization been implemented? I think we can both agree that nationalization in and of itself isn't "progressive" or a "victory for the workers" and that in order to determine whether or not it actually is progressive one must look at the context of the nationalization and what it actually means in this instance.

The context seems clear: the workers strived for it, and won it in the end.


It looks as if this was a progressive move, as you have stated, and I am inclined to think that it is, but I would also like to see some more information as to the context and as to the opinions of the workers it affects before I actually go one way or another.

I am sorry, but I have no privileged information; I'm reasoning upon the information we have.

Luís Henrique

[nanovapor]

True communism and true socialism is complete workers ownership of all resources, which is very utopian and naive in today's world. I think that the nationalization of SIDOR benefits the Venezuelan burocratic government, not the workers. Venezuela is a welfare-state-capitalist system not a socialist system. I am a Chavez follower, but i study psychology and behaviour of people. and I've noticed that the behaviour of most latin americans, when they are in government and politics is a burocratic, stalinist, personalist, behaviour. There are a lot of stalinism and burocratism in Venezuela's government right now. Not Chavez, but his followers and lots of people who have never read what socialism is think that socialism is state-capitalist burocratism.

I am telling you this because i am spanish, and I know about the behaviour of latinamericans in most latinamerican's governments, people are corrupt, and prone to corruption. There is a lot of unchecked appetites and hunger in people, a lot of greed and evil, so it is real hard to adopt a marxist behaviour, an altruist, moralist behaviour when you are so hungry.

I am a member of a Chavista forum www.aporrea.org (http://www.aporrea.org) and most of the Chavez followers of "21st Century Socialism" are not real marxists but follow 21st century socialism blindly without understanding its basic arguments

nanovapor




Luis, in what context has this nationalization been implemented? I think we can both agree that nationalization in and of itself isn't "progressive" or a "victory for the workers" and that in order to determine whether or not it actually is progressive one must look at the context of the nationalization and what it actually means in this instance.

It looks as if this was a progressive move, as you have stated, and I am inclined to think that it is, but I would also like to see some more information as to the context and as to the opinions of the workers it affects before I actually go one way or another.

[Guest1]

SIDOR: multinational resists nationalisation - workforce moves to workers' control (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../sidor-multinational-resists-t75677/index.html)

[KC]

That link doesn't work.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Of course we can talk of victory; it is a partial victory.

Fine, "partial victory", "a won battle".


The workers of Sidor cannot seize world power, or become the dominant class, alone.
Yes, I know, that. I do know that it takes the entire class to seize power.


I didn't bring your mother into discussion; you keep mine outside of it as well. You may dislike my arguments, you may even be offended by them. But they are, all of them, of a political nature. Your resort to petty name calling shows only one thing: your despair, because you run out of political arguments.

You're name calling has no effect on me, cos I don't think much of you.
You're condescending, bullying, and a manipulator of peoples words. When found incorrect you lash-out in your corner.


Venezuela is a capitalist society. As long as it is a capitalist society, Sidor is going to be either a private company or a State company. Yes, it could also be a cooperative "owned" by workers, but I would still call that a private company.

Why are you still arguing for capitalism?
Why not try to broaden the struggle, so as to challenge capital?


Only if the capitalist State is overthrown it can become something different. This is the reason why your "oppose both" line is flawed: you believe that the Sidor workers should have demanded the end of capitalism, and the socialisation of means of production. This is what "oppose both" means - unless you are talking of concentrating in the wage demands, and refraining from discussing nationalisation or privatisation; something that I would call "oppose none" rather than "oppose both".

You can't demand socialism, it has to be struggled for.
You have to continue the struggle, but you also have to understand the limits of each struggle, especially those struggles that weren't broad.




Yes, you do.

You brought them into discussion, with a clear intent: to show that there was a confrontation between workers and Chávez regime. So at that point you - correctly - underlined it was a legitimate workers' movement.

Since it ended in a way different from what you were expecting, you are now wondering whether the goals of the movement were decided by the workers, or by the unions, or even by the State. This is a betrayal.



I've not abandoned them, and you have also admitted you don't know all the facts. If this was a legitimate act of the workers, then great they know what their collective strength can do. But the struggle must go on, it can't help to go on because of opposing interests, and to stop and praise Chavez isn't going to advance the struggle.

Yet, wheres your criticism of those who do praise Chavez, in this possible victory?


You believe your pathetic petty bourgeois organisation needs to show the way to workers; if workers decide their ways without bowing to you, they are not "socialist conscious" and are under "bourgeois hysteria" or "hypnosis".

You can't have theory without struggle. Theory is born from struggle, and people who know their theory need to be in the struggles.
The way in which the bourgeoisie project their interests on workers, is hypnotic.


And of course, you said "agitation", even in capital letters, but you in fact meant "propaganda"; I doubt you would be able to agitate anything among workers like those of Sidor, and I also doubt you can make the difference between "agitation" and "propaganda".

There you go again being condescending.


However, it was the first time Chávez actively confronted a working class movement, and showed his government is capable to shoot workers to protect itself. I think in the whole it was much more a defeat for Chávez than a victory.

Thats your point of view of it being a defeat for Chavez, and you even admitted you don't really know. Me, I'm just asking for more info, but you say I'm a class-traitor.



Now you are not even asking if they are so, you are directly stating it...


You really think that people aren't manipulated by capital?
The rule of capital can impose the limits of struggles, such in this case, it's locality-- which may have caused the workers to choose a boss, instead of choosing to be their own.


I hope not, because your "help" is much more probably going to harm them than any other thing.

Sure, lets not help fellow workers with their direction in the struggle.


You prefer your own hypnosis, but you haven't the means to impose it on workers. No leftist organisation has; capital has all the conditions to keep such hypnosis, unless workers can shake it off themselves, through struggle and democratic discussion.

Thats what I meant. But ofcourse in these discussions there will be militants.


No, that's not the difference between us. You think they will awake from it through your propaganda; I believe they will awake from it throught the practical experience of class struggle.

The struggle needs a direction. Thats where militants intervene in struggles and discussion.


I must admit I was wrong in calling you a spontaneist; you are a vulgar vanguardist instead.

You sound like an Economism-Spontaneist.


Private companies are directly driven by the search of profit, so it is quite unlikely that they would propose better wages or conditions; if they did, workers who have some class struggle experience would probably see it as an unreliable promise.

Why would this re-nationalisation be so reliable?
It could be sold off to the privateers again.


But, yes, if there were sufficient guarantees (which seems way unlikely) that the privatisation would increase wages, reduce firings, and improve conditions in general, why not? The only objection I can think of is that, if the State is such a bad employer that a private company would be better, such State cannot be trusted to enforce the dealings between workers and company as well.

I asked because I was trying to see your philosophy on state owned enterprises.

But here your flaw is that the Communist movement must have immediate successes, the success of Communism must be in the long-run. The workers movement can have successes for this or that demand, in the short run, but it is our task to explain and discuss with them how their real standard of living will be for the benefit of the better in the long-run by broadening the struggle, challenge capital, and seize the means of production.


Evidently. Nobody is talking about being popular. The appropriate points should always be made. Propaganda must always take place. The repressive role of the State must always be underlined. Analysis of the situation must always be discussed with workers. Nobody denies that.

Oh, but thats too "vanguardist".

You're no longer an economism-spontaneist.
Still you're crude and condescending. and you jumped down my throat because I questioned this. I wondered if the original workers demand were met. But to question that is rat-like.



Want a blueprint? I have none.


I'm not asking for a blue-print I'm asking for positions. Do you think theres should be price policies, and a body of statitcians who regulate what is made in the name of Communism? Or should what is created and distributed be under the direct control of workers' councils?

[Luís Henrique]

Why are you still arguing for capitalism?

I am not arguing for capitalism. Are you illiterate? I am stating the fact that Venezuela is still a capitalist society.


Yet, wheres your criticism of those who do praise Chavez, in this possible victory?

I have clearly stated that Chávez is not a revolutionary, and Venezuela is not a socialist country. It is really impossible to take you in serious, as you seem to make a point of not reading what I write, and ascribing to me opinions that I don't hold.


Thats your point of view of it being a defeat for Chavez, and you even admitted you don't really know. Me, I'm just asking for more info, but you say I'm a class-traitor.

The info I have, which is the same you also have, points to such analysis. If more info surfaces, it may make the analysis obsolete; until then, I will stick with it.


Why would this re-nationalisation be so reliable?

Who said it is? It is a victory for the workers, just that. Nobody stated it is irreversible, and nobody stated it changes the mode of production in Venezuela.


Still you're crude and condescending. and you jumped down my throat because I questioned this.

Nope. You came against me with your foolish accusations, your preconceived notions of where I stand, and your total inability to actually understand what I say. Then when I defend myself I am some kind of monster? Either you make yourself able to take half of what you dish, or you stop dishing it out.


I'm not asking for a blue-print I'm asking for positions. Do you think theres should be price policies, and a body of statitcians who regulate what is made in the name of Communism? Or should what is created and distributed be under the direct control of workers' councils?

Don't be ridiculous, my positions on these issues are well known and have been discussed numberless times.

Luís Henrique

[Guest1]

That link doesn't work.
Sorry... here:

SIDOR: multinational resists nationalisation - workforce moves to workers' control (http://www.revleft.com/vb/sidor-multinational-resists-t75677/index.html)

[Entrails Konfetti]

I am not arguing for capitalism. Are you illiterate? I am stating the fact that Venezuela is still a capitalist society.

"Either you're for nationalisation or against it".
Like theres no other alternative?
Then you say well socialism isn't on the agenda.
Well, it has to be put on there by us. The question is how much class-struggle this will take.


I have clearly stated that Chávez is not a revolutionary, and Venezuela is not a socialist country. It is really impossible to take you in serious, as you seem to make a point of not reading what I write, and ascribing to me opinions that I don't hold.

Well, once I corollate: you're either for nationalisation or the persistence of privatisation, at first glance it look like " you're either for the Chavistas or the opposition". But once considering your point of view, that it wasn't the governments intention to nationalise, and they're trying to look like their the friend of the workers, I can't corollate two positions, and that there's more sides than that.

But it's ironic how that you tell me off for not seeing the many facetts, while I do the same thing to you. And we both ascribe opinions to each other that we don't hold.

I'm annoyed that you said I wanted to see the workers murdered. You totally read something into that article that wasn't there, like there was this idea of how the domino would fall, and the we're rubbing are hands in delight for blood. It's insulting that you'd think we'd be so deluded to think the state would be so stupid as to keep the masacre going without trying to intervene or cover their ass.


The info I have, which is the same you also have, points to such analysis. If more info surfaces, it may make the analysis obsolete; until then, I will stick with it.

I read the workers were weary of nationalisation, aswell as the referendum, and that the Union bosses accepted the ref, on certain conditions, and compromised alot of the original demands. Then we get in this article quotes from union bureaucrats, one of which said the ministers was trying to make Chavez look bad, and that they're pretty much for Chavez, and that this was a workers victory. We do hear about the demonstrations and stoppages by workers, but only after Chavez called for nationalisations. For me, this this makes wonder how things really played out.


Who said it is? It is a victory for the workers, just that. Nobody stated it is irreversible, and nobody stated it changes the mode of production in Venezuela.

Again another reason why I question the event. I wouldn't doubt the workers thought the possibilty of SIDOR just being re-privatised.


Nope. You came against me with your foolish accusations, your preconceived notions of where I stand, and your total inability to actually understand what I say. Then when I defend myself I am some kind of monster? Either you make yourself able to take half of what you dish, or you stop dishing it out.

Maybe I shouldn't have torn into gunther glick-- usually I'm more civil, but it gets really irritating when people claim revolutionary-socialism, and think the state can be transformed by a populist restructuring everything into socialism. A mobilisation against a coup suddenly becomes the descisive battles of Moscow, Tsarkoye Skeyo, and Petrograd.

You accused me of things too. You had you're preconcieved notions,
you came at me with them first.

What comes around goes around.


Don't be ridiculous, my positions on these issues are well known and have been discussed numberless times.

All I know is that you critique a good portion of my posts in politics, CC, WA, and theory.

[Luís Henrique]

"Either you're for nationalisation or against it".

Are you saying that I wrote that?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

All I know is that you critique a good portion of my posts in politics, CC, WA, and theory.

Which means that you rarely read my posts, as it is not that often that I engage in discussions with you.

Luís Henrique

[Entrails Konfetti]

Are you saying that I wrote that?


And so you oppose the nationalisation, and support Terniun-Sidor...



Which means that you rarely read my posts, as it is not that often that I engage in discussions with you.


I don't look for names in order to open threads, I look at the title of threads.

[Luís Henrique]

Yes, I do think it is possible to oppose private and State capital, or national and foreign capital. No, I don't think that in the actual situation of class struggle in Venezuela and in the world, it is possible to that plant to be anything else than a private company or a State company.

I am neither for privatisation nor for nationalisation, I'm for its expropriation by the working class. So I don't believe that "either you're for nationalisation or against it".

But, unless you are saying that it is possible to abolish capitalism in Venezuela through the struggle of workers of a single company... opposing nationalisation now implies supporting the company remaining private now.

Luís Henrique

[beltov]

So SIDOR has been re-nationalised. But this is not a step forward for the steel workers, but a real trap for their struggle. As our comrades in Venezuela said during the strikes:


Faced with the workers' intransigence, they have pulled another trick from up their sleeve: the holding of a referendum in order to consult each worker about their agreement or not with the firm's proposals. Promoted by the Chavist minister of Labour (a Trotskyist or ex-Trotskyist), the proposal has already received the agreement of the SUTISS, though with certain "conditions". Class instinct has led several workers to reject this trap, which is aimed at undermining the sovereign assemblies (where the real strength of the working class is expressed) by turning each worker into a "citizen", who will have to define himself for or against the firm and state in isolation by means of the ballot box!! Faced with this the workers need to affirm themselves through their sovereign assemblies.

Another trap used against the movement is the proposition by the unions and various "revolutionary" sectors of Chavism to renationalise SIDOR, which is mainly owned by Argentine capital (the Venezuelan state owns 20% of the shares). This campaign could be a disaster for the struggle, since the workers have no choice but to confront the capitalists, be they Argentine or Venezuelan state bureaucrats. Nationalisation does not mean the disappearance of exploitation; the state-boss, even with a "worker's" face, has no other option than to permanently try to attack workers' wages and working conditions. The left of capital presents the concentration of companies in the hands of the state as a quick way to "socialism", hiding one of the fundamental lessons of marxism: the state is the representative of the interests of each national bourgeoisie, and therefore the enemy of the proletariat. The Chavist bourgeoisie today is the head of the state which is seeking to increase the amount of surplus value it can gain, and in the name of "Bolivarian socialism" massively increases the level of precariousness of work through the missions and jointly managed companies (as happened with the workers of Invepal or Inveval).

These "Bolivarian revolutionaries" try to make the workers forget that for many years SIDOR was a state firm, and that they have had to struggle at various ties against the high rank bureaucrats of the state who administered it and their forces of repression, struggling for their own demands but also against the unions (the allies of capital in the factories). At the beginning of the 70's during the first Caldera government, this included burning down part of the installations of the CTV in Caracas in response to its anti-worker actions.

The state has been in the hands of the Chavists since 1999, but has not magically lost its capitalist character. All that has changed are its clothes, which now have a "socialist" colouring; but it is still a fundamental organ in the defence of the interests of capital against those of labour. The fact that Chávez presents himself as a "Sidorist" or a "worker" when it suits him should not confuse us about the class character of the Chavist government, which capital put in place in order to defend its system of exploitation as it sinks deeper and deeper into crisis. The workers are not so stupid as to believe these "revolutionaries" who put forwards the panacea of "re-nationalisation", but who live like bourgeois, earning salaries 30 times or more than the official minimum wage.
http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2008/apr/steel-struggles


So, the SIDOR workers will find that the Venezuelan state will continue the attacks on their living and working conditions. What should they do in the face of these attacks? In the face of these attacks they should continue the class struggle through their general assemblies and seek the real solidarity of the workers throughout the region,


The only way that this movement can succeed is through looking for solidarity. Initially with the contract workers, where the demand to make them permanent is one of the principle expressions of solidarity; but it is no less important to win the solidarity of workers in other branches of industry, at the regional or national level, since whether we work in the state sector or the private sector, we are all being hit by the blows of the economic crisis. It is also necessary to express solidarity with the population of Guayana, where the unemployed are affected by the high cost of living, and by the problems that the state cannot resolve, such as delinquency, housing, etc. However, this solidarity cannot be carried out through the unions, since they are the main organs for controlling the struggle, creating divisions between different industries and sectors, and in the last instance, complementing state repression; neither can solidarity with the local population be left in the hands of the social organisations created by the state, such as the communal councils. Solidarity must be "generated" by the workers themselves, through assemblies open to other workers.
The struggle of the metalworkers is our struggle, because they are fighting for a decent life, for the benefit of the whole of the proletariat. But the best benefit, apart for the momentary increase in the level of wages, resides in the development of consciousness of the strength that the proletariat has in its own hands, outside of the unions and the other institutions invented by the state in order to control social discontent.
The national bourgeoisie know that the situation in Guyana is intensely dangerous to its interests. The concentration of workers in this region and their experience of past struggles makes it very explosive, since at the same time there is a wider accumulation of labour and social discontent which has existed for some time due to the attacks on employment and workers' living conditions. In this sense, the so-called Metal Zone has a potential for transforming itself into a focal point for the workers' struggle in the country, as happened in the 60's and 70's.
The SIDOR workers have taken the only road possible for confronting the attacks of capital, that of the struggle. Spreading the fight to other branches of regional and national production, whilst looking for solidarity from the population as a whole: this is the road that will enable the Venezuelan proletariat to become part of an international movement for the overthrow capital and the creation of a real socialist society.