Venezuela: Chirino stirring trouble again

[Die Neue Zeit]

The allegedly "ultra-left" Orlando Chirino, who in actual fact is a modern Menshevik, is stirring more trouble in Venezuela:

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/3362


Chirino, a leader of C-CURA accused the "red bureaucrats" of the government of carrying out a "coup" via the FSBT "against the autonomous and democratic will of the Venezuelan workers."

For Chirino the proposed new federation is a sign that Venezuela is heading towards Stalinism because "the government wants to control the labor movement."

http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2008/04/14/venezuelan-steel-workers-fight-repression


[Biased word edited out] Oil company militant and UNT union coordinator Orlando Chirino has commented: “If the SIDOR workers win, this anti-worker Labour Minister will fall in a few minutes. If the SIDOR workers win the workers in the public sector will win their struggle. If the SIDOR workers win, the fight for trade union autonomy will win.”

[Luís Henrique]

The allegedly "ultra-left" Orlando Chirino, who in actual fact is a modern Menshevik, is stirring more trouble in Venezuela:

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/3362



http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2008/04/14/venezuelan-steel-workers-fight-repression

He seems to be essentially correct. There is a move by some in the Venezolan government to frame the workers' movement within the State. That should be resisted by all means.

Luís Henrique

[Zurdito]

damn union leaders stirring trouble, don't they know the bourgeois state knows what's best for workers:rolleyes:

The Venezuelan government sent the national guard to beat the shit out of workers, it put itself forward as mediator in one of the questions in a corrupt SIDOR-run referendum which offered workers either government arbitration or "continued conflict", and back in February the government said that the strike waas an "error", that it was carried out by saboteurs working for the oppsoition, and that if it continued to interfere with the "normal functioning of the country" that the workers could be ordered back to work by the executive, who could then take over as their representative in place of their union. So actually Chirino is correct.

[Herman]

He seems to be essentially correct. There is a move by some in the Venezolan government to frame the workers' movement within the State. That should be resisted by all means.

This is a correct statement.


damn union leaders stirring trouble, don't they know the borugeois state knows what's best for workers

This, however, is not.

[Luís Henrique]

This, however, is not.

damn union leaders stirring trouble, don't they know the borugeois state knows what's best for workers
Fixed for you.

Luís Henrique

[Zurdito]

cheers Luis.

couldn't you have fixed my typing skills too? ;)

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I'm upset by his blatantly Menshevik platitudes during the December 2007 referendum (and for that, he should be held to account). :( Encouraging voters to abstain or spoil their ballots is one thing; encouraging voters to vote "NO" is quite another.

[Zurdito]

^^^ I'm upset by his blatantly Menshevik platitudes during the December 2007 referendum (and for that, he should be held to account). :( Encouraging voters to abstain or spoil their ballots is one thing; encouraging voters to vote "NO" is quite another.

Well you can be upset by that if you want, but it's pretty pointless to extend this to everything he says, even topics like SIDOR where his statements are clearly right

btw Chirino was wrong to call for a NO vote, I agree.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ The temptation towards the emotional manifestation of reductionism - the latter being the most significant but not exclusive "internal" challenge to revolutionary Marxism - was/is quite strong. :(

[Zurdito]

hmmm

well I find that surprising, because my "emotional manifestation" urges me more to the side of overly defending a long-time revolutionary activist and trade union leader who occassionally takes ultra-left positions as an over-reaction to a regime which is trying to co-opt trade unions into the bourgeois state and clamp down on workign class demcoracy, with the aim of putting an end to a revolutionary situation and easing through the "second independence" of a bourgeois state on the basis of superexploitation by private sector manufacturers.

swings and roundabouts I guess ;)

[el_chavista]

We are doubtful about Chirinos' attitude. Is he concerned with ideas or with opportunities? People from "Corriente Marxista Revolucionaria" are doing a better job along the workers in the occupied factories.
Chávez is not a marxist but he is aware of the working class power.

[Herman]

as an over-reaction to a regime which is trying to co-opt trade unions into the bourgeois state and clamp down on working class democracy, with the aim of putting an end to a revolutionary situation and easing through the "second independence" of a bourgeois state on the basis of superexploitation by private sector manufacturers.

"Aim of putting an end to a revolutionary situation"? Talk about conspiracy nuts. Of course, many people keep forgetting that communal councils are granted more autonomy and decision-making power as time passes (something which could have progressed even more with the new constitution which Chirino actively campaigned for a "NO" vote). You keep talking about how the "bourgeois state" wants to clamp down on workers, when it's the government itself which is encouraging the takeover of factories.

Is progress slow? Yes, it is. Does that mean that their objective is to "end a revolutionary situation"? No, it isn't. I'm sorry if this isn't your ideal "guns and class warfare" revolution. However Marx never said socialism could not be achieved peacefully.

[Luís Henrique]

"Aim of putting an end to a revolutionary situation"? Talk about conspiracy nuts.

No, it is not a conspiracy theory. That's what a bourgeois State does, and evidently the Venezolan State seeks exactly this. However there is a strong divergence among the Venezolan bourgeoisie on how should "normalcy" be restored. Workers have evidently to oppose the coup attempts by the pro-American faction first and foremost. But they do also have to oppose moves like the attempts to crack down on SIDOR.


Of course, many people keep forgetting that communal councils are granted more autonomy and decision-making power as time passes (something which could have progressed even more with the new constitution which Chirino actively campaigned for a "NO" vote). You keep talking about how the "bourgeois state" wants to clamp down on workers, when it's the government itself which is encouraging the takeover of factories.

We have seen that this is not true. Only a violent strike was able to attain SIDOR's nationalisation, and even this faced State repression, with workers being shot and beaten.


Is progress slow? Yes, it is. Does that mean that their objective is to "end a revolutionary situation"? No, it isn't.

They don't work with such a concept, but of course their aim is to reinstate a "normal" situation; there is no question about that. They of course aren't able to do it, because the Venezolan bourgeoisie lacks unity and hegemonic capabilities, but this is a different issue.


I'm sorry if this isn't your ideal "guns and class warfare" revolution. However Marx never said socialism could not be achieved peacefully.

If he didn't say, he should. But of course he stated what is the kernel of the comprehension that a violent uprising is necessary: that the bourgeois State cannot be taken piecemeal, because its unity always against the working class and in favour of capital.

Luís Henrique

[Die Neue Zeit]

Of course, many people keep forgetting that communal councils are granted more autonomy and decision-making power as time passes (something which could have progressed even more with the new constitution which Chirino actively campaigned for a "NO" vote).

And this is ultimately why Chirino is a MENSHEVIK, and not someone with "ultra-left" tendencies. Luis, why didn't you comment on this key part (instead commenting only on unions)?

[nanovapor]

Hello all: I am a Chavista (A chavez fan), i even have pictures of Chavez in the wall of my room, i have read a biography. however i have read Marx and Marxist literature, and so far what i understand is that it is the working classes along with a workers socialist vanguard party who will lead the struggle to achieving socialism, by overthrowing the capitalists from power and turning the private means of production into social ownership of all corporations and install a workers state. And according to the great Trotsky, socialism in 1 country or 2 is too hard, almost impossible, because of the fact, that if you try to install socialism in 1 country, the other capitalist countries will terrorize you, and your socialist country will turn into a capitalist-state in order to maintain the economy and into an imperialist fascist state in order to prevent invasion from other capitalist states. So really it is too hard to install socialism in 1 nation.

Venezuela Bolivarian Revolution is the best democracy of the world, i know, and Chavez is trying as hard as he can to lead the country toward socialism, however the world needs for workers to be more politicallly active in order to reach socialism, too not just political leaders doing that

nanovapor

nanovapor




The allegedly "ultra-left" Orlando Chirino, who in actual fact is a modern Menshevik, is stirring more trouble in Venezuela:

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/3362



http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2008/04/14/venezuelan-steel-workers-fight-repression

[Herman]

No, it is not a conspiracy theory. That's what a bourgeois State does, and evidently the Venezolan State seeks exactly this.

How many times must one repeat that Chavez is not "bourgeois" and the Venezuelan state is not "bourgeois". The Venezuelan state does not seek to do as you say. The fact that Venezuelan workers are more conscious and revolutionary now than ever before, and talking about how socialism should look like, proves you wrong.


We have seen that this is not true. Only a violent strike was able to attain SIDOR's nationalisation, and even this faced State repression, with workers being shot and beaten.

It was the governor who sent in the troops (and you will realize that the state is not monolithic as you make it out to be), and the ministry of labour who attempted to "calm the situation" by discrediting the SIDOR workers. It was ultimately Chavez who decided to nationalize it (how ironic!).


They don't work with such a concept, but of course their aim is to reinstate a "normal" situation; there is no question about that.

No, no it isn't.


They of course aren't able to do it, because the Venezolan bourgeoisie lacks unity and hegemonic capabilities, but this is a different issue.

The Venezuelan bourgeoisie are the ones attempting to discredit and overthrow Chavez and his government. They are not on the same side.


Workers have evidently to oppose the coup attempts by the pro-American faction first and foremost. But they do also have to oppose moves like the attempts to crack down on SIDOR.

Yes, they should. They should denounce corruption, bureaucrats and ministers attempting to dismantle the bolivarian revolution.

[Zurdito]

"Aim of putting an end to a revolutionary situation"? Talk about conspiracy nuts. Of course, many people keep forgetting that communal councils are granted more autonomy and decision-making power as time passes (something which could have progressed even more with the new constitution which Chirino actively campaigned for a "NO" vote).

I'm amazed at your ability to take at face value everything Chavez says. The proposed reforms empowered the state to limit freedom of information and increased the President's power to rule by decree. Why? To fight against the right-wing opposition, you say? Well, back in the 1930's Trotsky had seen through the lie that workers should call for more powers for the bourgeois state to fight fascism, as this would in the long term only strengthen the state and be used against the working class. Why would you now fall for the same trick when we have the benefit of history's lessons? It's beyond me.


You keep talking about how the "bourgeois state" wants to clamp down on workers, when it's the government itself which is encouraging the takeover of factories.

Well this is a very "formal logic" way of looking at it. In reality if the borugeois state is encouraging the takeover of factories, then you can be sure that they are doing so to curb and co-opt a radicalsied working class. Sometimes, if contradiction with imeprialism are great and social discontent runs deep and there appears to be no way of the borugeoisie regaining legitimacy purely with short-term reforms, this can mean even pre-empting the masses and implementing measures which until then only the vanguard had been talkign about. This is based ont he need to cosntruct a "new kind of capitalism", based ont he understandign that the old kind was unsustainable. Take Peron, Nasser, Cardenas etc. as classic examples. Even Castro originally.

But even this is an exaggeration in Chavez's case - the SIDOR workers have been demanding nationalsiation of SIDOR explicitly at least since May last year.

Fundamentally in Venezuela there has not been a seriosu challenge to the private property of the bourgeoisie as a class, rather the governemnt has rested itself on rising oil prices - land rent. In fact "productive capitalists" like SIDOR and the rest of the industrial core have had traditionally had extremely good relations with the government, and therefore the government has been in direct opposition to the the interests of the mass of the industrial working class. This is why the SIDOR workers had to go on strike for 15 months and then face Labour Ministry intervention villifying them and threatening to 1.) force them to go back to work by executive decree and 2.) take negotiating rights out of their hands and force them to be represented by the Labour Minsitry, this is why workers were arrested and hospitalised by the National Guard pruely for exercising their right to protest, this is why SIDOR workers were being denied a reasonable pay-rise (and the offer was spread over 30 months) at a time when annual inflation just this year is going to be 20%! (according to venezuelan government statistics)

So no, "socialism" does not force workers to take a pay-cut in roder to protect the super-profits of multinational companies. Oh yeah, sure, now when the SIDOR workers managed to get 5000 protesters to attend a soldiarity protest, when they held a cofnerence with over 100 different trade unions, union tendenciies and political party's attending and vowing to extend nationwide protests and soldiarity action, then suddenly Chavez, after 23 days of silence over the National Guard attack, decides that he has noticed the protest after all, and nationalises the company, giving the owner full-compensation. But this is onyl because they fear that the working class will swing out of their control, and not accept the pay-cuts being forced onto it by inflation. There are over 55 000 industrial workers currently in disputes up to and including strike action in venezuela right now, and the vast majority are up against multinational companies being protected by the Venezuelan state. Which side are you going to be on?

So actually the extent of Chavez's populism rests on high oil prices, which has given him the chance to prolong the period in which he is able to rule by fgranting reforms on the one hand, and by garuanteeing profits to the bourgeoisie on the other. Chavez oscillates between the classes, he is a "left-bonparte", as Trotsky described Lazaro Cardenas: who actually went a lot further in his measures than Chavez. Yet, you should look up Trotsky's writibngs on Cardenas, they are available on marxists.org. Trotsky obviously felt very kindly towards him and strongly defended Mexico against imperialism, but never did he suggest that Cardenas was a socialsit and could in fact lead a proletarian revolution himself! Imgine trotsky giving up the idea of an independent and explciitly reovlutionary international oparty, and instead tellign to workers to politically support (and not just critically support against imperialism) a bourgeois government.

So, ok, if you've given up onTrotskyism and think it's possible that Chavez can impleent a sustainable and acceptable alternative to capitalism based on a mixed economy, taxes on oil profits, super-exploitation of industrial workers by a "productive" manufacturing bourgeoisie, and all the rest of it, then go ahead, but I am sorry,t his position has ntohign at all to do with class based politics, it's reformism and popular frontism.


Is progress slow?Yes, it is.

Marx also said that less than a day's worth of change can happen in 20 years, then 20 years can happen in a day. His point being that the class struggle can't be advanced by some linear implementation of enlightened policies, at a "sensible pace", over time, but rather that history is made by the revolutionary class grabbing the chance to expropriate our oppressors. When we miss it and are sold out to "reforms", even though we appear to be going "forward" to socialism,a ctually we are not, the institution of private property is simply being protected for a time by reforms, until the bourgeoisie is able to force throught he necessarry measures to step up its productivity via outright repression.

Now it's possible that this might happen through a coup against Chavez. A good analogy for this owuld be the coup against Allende. Yet, the ground was prepared for that by Allende's misguided popular frontism, which demobilised the workign class sufficiently - pulling back from the crucial question of arming the class, for exmaple - and therefore this strategy of a slow progress towards socialism had tragic consequences.



Does that mean that their objective is to "end a revolutionary situation"?

Well I doubt Chavez sees it this way. The bourgeosie does not attain class consciousness, it will never understand it's own true role in history, because it cannot place itself outside of capitalism. Undoubtedly, Chavez thinks he is a socialist. He sees the need to disarm those who "disrupt" the "second independence" and 21st century socialism, because from his point of view, an independent working class revoltuion in Venezuela would be disastrous and bloody and throw the coutnry back intot he dark ages, and therefore instead, the workign class needs to be lead by great leaders like himself, in co-operation with "friendly, productive, anti-imperialist" capitalists. However, as marxists, we know he is wrong, we don't fear the loss of "law and order", ebcause know that bourgeois "law and order" exist not to keep us safe, but to protect capitalists private property.


I'm sorry if this isn't your ideal "guns and class warfare" revolution.

There was plenty of "guns and class warfare" when the National Guard attacked the working class with guns, in the name of the bourgeoise.


However Marx never said socialism could not be achieved peacefully.

Marx also joined the First International and fought for an independent working class party which was explicitly revolutionary and internationalist


And this is ultimately why Chirino is a MENSHEVIK, and not someone with "ultra-left" tendencies. Luis, why didn't you comment on this key part (instead commenting only on unions)?

Does this mean you think chavez is a Bolshevik?

Please, Chirino was a leader of the Committee for a Resvolutionary Socialist Party, he has clearly been part fo the struggle to found a genuine revolutionary party along the Bolshevik model. Some of his tactics are flawed, however this doesn't make him a menshevik.

[nanovapor]

Hello all, indeed, a bourgeois-state would mean that Chavez's political campaign would be funded by business owners, and banks. That would mean that once in power Chavez would have to adopt bourgeois-policies in order to pay back what the business sector lent him in his campaign. But this is not the case, Chavez is a populist, not a bourgeois, and Venezuela state right now is a populist-social state not a bourgeois-state. Venezuela is not a socialist system, Venezuela is a sort of anomaly and stage between a bourgeois-state and a socialist-state. It is a nation in transition toward a democratic workers state

nanovapor



How many times must one repeat that Chavez is not "bourgeois" and the Venezuelan state is not "bourgeois". The Venezuelan state does not seek to do as you say. The fact that Venezuelan workers are more conscious and revolutionary now than ever before, and talking about how socialism should look like, proves you wrong.



It was the governor who sent in the troops (and you will realize that the state is not monolithic as you make it out to be), and the ministry of labour who attempted to "calm the situation" by discrediting the SIDOR workers. It was ultimately Chavez who decided to nationalize it (how ironic!).



No, no it isn't.



The Venezuelan bourgeoisie are the ones attempting to discredit and overthrow Chavez and his government. They are not on the same side.



Yes, they should. They should denounce corruption, bureaucrats and ministers attempting to dismantle the bolivarian revolution.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Does this mean you think Chavez is a Bolshevik?

Please, Chirino was a leader of the Committee for a Revolutionary Socialist Party, he has clearly been part of the struggle to found a genuine revolutionary party along the Bolshevik model. Some of his tactics are flawed, however this doesn't make him a Menshevik.

Not at all. Chavez is an out-and-out reformist. Also remember that the Mensheviks were political double-crossers at a time when the Bolsheviks weren't in power, either.

[redarmyfaction38]

the way i understand it our mate chavez, in his efforts to create a "new" socialism has managed to fall into the old traps of bourgeouis politics and a "stalinist" top down approach to the "revolution".
chirino was quite correct to criticise chavez, as chavez has been guilty of discouraging rather than encouraging autonomous "revolutionary" seizures of the means of production by the working class and peasantry, in fact he has acted in the interests of the bourgeouisie in trying to "normalise" the situation.
venezuala is in a classical dual power situation, revolution and reaction are evenly balanced, at this time, chirinos criticisms are correct and relevant.
if chavez does not carry the revolution forward by encouraging and supporting the actions of the venezualan working class, then the revolution will fail.
if he does however, the rest of south americas massive politically conscious working class could be spurred into action.

[nanovapor]

I agree with your thesis-hypothesis stance about the Venezuela-Revolution. You are right, and referring to Trotsky, you are right indeed. According to Trotsky, socialism in 1 country is amost impossible, because any country that tries to adopt socialism in a capitalist world, will *necessarily* have to resport to *state capitalism* (with high welfare social services) in order to dress it as a *socialist state*.

I think that's what Venezuela is right now, it is a state-capitalist system with high degree of social spending in welfare.

However, Venezuel's state-capitalism welfare system is a lot better than most countries in this world, which are oligarchic systems.

However in order for Venezuela to be socialist, all other countries would have to be socialists too, because it is real hard for a socialist system to maintain itself in a world of free market trade and capitalism

nanovapor


the way i understand it our mate chavez, in his efforts to create a "new" socialism has managed to fall into the old traps of bourgeouis politics and a "stalinist" top down approach to the "revolution".
chirino was quite correct to criticise chavez, as chavez has been guilty of discouraging rather than encouraging autonomous "revolutionary" seizures of the means of production by the working class and peasantry, in fact he has acted in the interests of the bourgeouisie in trying to "normalise" the situation.
venezuala is in a classical dual power situation, revolution and reaction are evenly balanced, at this time, chirinos criticisms are correct and relevant.
if chavez does not carry the revolution forward by encouraging and supporting the actions of the venezualan working class, then the revolution will fail.
if he does however, the rest of south americas massive politically conscious working class could be spurred into action.

[Herman]

I'm amazed at your ability to take at face value everything Chavez says. The proposed reforms empowered the state to limit freedom of information and increased the President's power to rule by decree.For the "limit freedom of information", this is far from the truth. On the contrary, the closing down of RTV is a very positive step, and the fact that your average worker with a few friends in a community can get access to radio or TV equipment from the government for free is proof that you are wrong. Do you know how many local radio stations there are? I would not be lying to you if I said hundreds. People have more power over what information they have access to now than ever before (and even more so than here in Europe!). For the "presidental rule by decree", he was allowed to do so by the national assembly twice, and even then he has to explain his actions.


Why? To fight against the right-wing opposition, you say? Well, back in the 1930's Trotsky had seen through the lie that workers should call for more powers for the bourgeois state to fight fascism, as this would in the long term only strengthen the state and be used against the working class. Why would you now fall for the same trick when we have the benefit of history's lessons? It's beyond me.Unfortunately, I disagree on Trotsky there. The alliance between social-democrats and communists in the 1930's was absolutely necessary. I know you take a more "anti-state" attitude, but I don't. That's the fundamental difference in opinion between you and me. Look what happened in Germany.


Well this is a very "formal logic" way of looking at it. In reality if the borugeois state is encouraging the takeover of factories, then you can be sure that they are doing so to curb and co-opt a radicalsied working class.So... the government encourages workers to takeover factories in order to curb their radicalism? What kind of nonsense is this? We can apply this same excuse to any occupied factory, really. And even if this was the governments' objective, it has completely backfired, as the workers have become even more radicalized.


Sometimes, if contradiction with imeprialism are great and social discontent runs deep and there appears to be no way of the borugeoisie regaining legitimacy purely with short-term reforms, this can mean even pre-empting the masses and implementing measures which until then only the vanguard had been talkign about. This is based ont he need to cosntruct a "new kind of capitalism", based ont he understandign that the old kind was unsustainable. Take Peron, Nasser, Cardenas etc. as classic examples. Even Castro originally.I know what you're talking about. This isn't the case for Venezuela though. Like Allende, Chavez has talked about implementing socialism. I concede that he is at times ambiguous and that there are many contradictions with the bolivarian movement. This is no reason however to believe that such movement is inherently bourgeois or capitalist.


But even this is an exaggeration in Chavez's case - the SIDOR workers have been demanding nationalsiation of SIDOR explicitly at least since May last year.Everyone demands many things. However, the government cannot do everything, especially when the new constitutional reforms were being promoted. At times as well it is wise to be cautious.


Fundamentally in Venezuela there has not been a seriosu challenge to the private property of the bourgeoisie as a class, rather the governemnt has rested itself on rising oil prices - land rent.Yes, you are right. They have not been challenged "seriously". Eventually they will be.


In fact "productive capitalists" like SIDOR and the rest of the industrial core have had traditionally had extremely good relations with the government, and therefore the government has been in direct opposition to the the interests of the mass of the industrial working class.As you have said, "traditionally". This is not the case right now. Again, I urge you to understand that the government and the state are not monolithic. Individual people play their roles in different ways. If you have anyone to blame, then you can blame the bureaucrats and right-wingers in the bolivarian movement.


This is why the SIDOR workers had to go on strike for 15 months and then face Labour Ministry intervention villifying them and threatening to 1.) force them to go back to work by executive decree and 2.) take negotiating rights out of their hands and force them to be represented by the Labour Minsitry, this is why workers were arrested and hospitalised by the National Guard pruely for exercising their right to protest, this is why SIDOR workers were being denied a reasonable pay-rise (and the offer was spread over 30 months) at a time when annual inflation just this year is going to be 20%! (according to venezuelan government statistics)Yes, what the ministry of labour did is inexcusible. Ironic, again, that Chavez decided to nationalize the factory, no? This goes to prove how Chavez is in touch with the plight of the workers.


So no, "socialism" does not force workers to take a pay-cut in roder to protect the super-profits of multinational companies. Oh yeah, sure, now when the SIDOR workers managed to get 5000 protesters to attend a soldiarity protest, when they held a cofnerence with over 100 different trade unions, union tendenciies and political party's attending and vowing to extend nationwide protests and soldiarity action, then suddenly Chavez, after 23 days of silence over the National Guard attack, decides that he has noticed the protest after all, and nationalises the company, giving the owner full-compensation. But this is onyl because they fear that the working class will swing out of their control, and not accept the pay-cuts being forced onto it by inflation. There are over 55 000 industrial workers currently in disputes up to and including strike action in venezuela right now, and the vast majority are up against multinational companies being protected by the Venezuelan state. Which side are you going to be on?Unfortunately, the world isn't so black and white. This isn't "if you're not with us, you're against us". Yes, the bureaucrats and right-wingers are attempting to stop workers from going "too far". Think about this however: there are more strikes and protests now than ever before. Why is this? Because they have been encouraged to do so. This was not the work of an independant communist or worker's party. This has been done by the spirit of the bolivarian revolution and its' semi-socialist ideals. To deny the positive contributions done by such movement, is an inherently reactionary position. What this means is that one should adopt a supportive, but critical attitude towards what is happening.


So actually the extent of Chavez's populismYou and I are populists as well, did you know that? Consider that before you start swinging terms here and there.


rests on high oil prices, which has given him the chance to prolong the period in which he is able to rule by fgranting reforms on the one hand, and by garuanteeing profits to the bourgeoisie on the other. Chavez oscillates between the classes,Reforms are always good, when they contribute to making the lives of people better.

Chavez does not "oscillate" between two classes. He has said things which contradict himself, yes. However, he has declared his support for socialism and people's communal power, which could have lead been so faster has the constitutional reform been approved.


he is a "left-bonparte", as Trotsky described Lazaro Cardenas: who actually went a lot further in his measures than Chavez. Yet, you should look up Trotsky's writibngs on Cardenas, they are available on marxists.org.I don't read Trotsky in order to know what is happening right now in Venezuela.


Trotsky obviously felt very kindly towards him and strongly defended Mexico against imperialism, but never did he suggest that Cardenas was a socialsit and could in fact lead a proletarian revolution himself! Imgine trotsky giving up the idea of an independent and explciitly reovlutionary international oparty, and instead tellign to workers to politically support (and not just critically support against imperialism) a bourgeois government.I do not know as much as you probably do about Cardenas, so I won't comment on that.


So, ok, if you've given up onTrotskyismNo, there are useful things in trotskyist thought that are very useful for your average marxist, "Permanent Revolution" being one of them.


and think it's possible that Chavez can impleent a sustainable and acceptable alternative to capitalism based on a mixed economy, taxes on oil profits, super-exploitation of industrial workers by a "productive" manufacturing bourgeoisie, and all the rest of it, then go ahead, but I am sorry,t his position has nothing at all to do with class based politics, it's reformism and popular frontism.Venezuela is the "hotbead" of class-based politics right now, as well as "reformism" and "popular frontism". This is why it attracts such interest. Are there reforms being done from above? Yes, there are. Is this wrong? No, so long as these reforms benefit the poor, the workers and peasants. Should there be more reforms from below? Yes, of course. This is where communal councils come in. It is of utmost importance that these new organs of local, and eventually national, power become the center of political activity. If you want the soviets to exist once again, supporting these is essential. As time passes, I have no doubt that they will acquire more responsibilities, eventually substituting the national-political state, with a communal state.

[Zurdito]

Herman: whos aid I oppose it when Chavez brings in reforms? Obviously, I do not. I don't oppose it when any government brings in a progressive reform, in fact as socialsits we must actively support such things. But this doesn't make that government bringing in the reform socialist and deserving of our political support - i.e. us arguing that the working class should vote for them, join their parties, etc.

regarding the constitutional reforms: actually, it was not about RCTV. The proposed reforms abolished the right to due legal legal process during a state of emergency, abolsihed the right on paper to freedom of information during a state of emergency, and abolished limits on the length of the state of emergency. Not to mention the extending of the presidential term to 7 years.



http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/2889


Section VIII. Constitutional exceptions: Right to information no longer guaranteed during state of emergency, emergencies to last as long as the conditions that caused it. Or in the governments own words:
Art. 337 - Change in states of emergency, so that the right to information is no longer protected in such instances. Also, the right to due process is removed in favor of the right to defense, to no forced disappearance, to personal integrity, to be judged by one's natural judges, and not to be condemned to over 30 years imprisonment.
Art. 338 - States of alert, emergency, and of interior or exterior commotion are no longer limited to a maximum of 180 days, but are to last as long as conditions persist that motivated the state of exception.
Art. 339 - The Supreme Court's approval for states of exception is no longer necessary, only the approval of the National Assembly.


So Herman, why would you want to give a state this increased power over the workign class, especially given recent examples of state repression against workers - which happened regardless of whether or not we believe that the current President opposed them, therefore hardly giving us confidence that his good intentions will be able to limit further repression by an increaisngly empowered state in the future.

One other thing: regarding Trotsky in the 1930's: he argues all along that socialists must make united fronts with social democracy against fascism. however he did not call for more power to the state. these are two seperate issues.

And PS, regarding not reading Trotsky to know what is going on in Venezuela today: you should, because he commented on analogous situations with great insight and arguments. History repeats itself first as tragedy, then as farce, remember that.

[Luís Henrique]

How many times must one repeat that Chavez is not "bourgeois" and the Venezuelan state is not "bourgeois".

Chavez, personally, is not a bourgeois. I doubt that he is able to think outside bourgeois categories, though. He dreams about building an independent center of power in Venezuela, which cannot work.

The Venezolan State is bourgeois, of course. How can it be anything else? Do you think it is a proletarian State?


The Venezuelan state does not seek to do as you say. The fact that Venezuelan workers are more conscious and revolutionary now than ever before, and talking about how socialism should look like, proves you wrong.

Even if it is true that Venezolan workers are more conscious and revolutionary than ever, what does it have to to with the Venezolan State? Proletarian consciousness is not a function of the State.


It was the governor who sent in the troops (and you will realize that the state is not monolithic as you make it out to be),

The governor is a member of Chávez's party. The State, obviously, isn't "monolithic", but it certainly is unified, and its unity is given by its function as a tool for capitalista acumulation.


and the ministry of labour who attempted to "calm the situation" by discrediting the SIDOR workers.

Another member of Chávez's party, and, of course, of the Venezolan State...


It was ultimately Chavez who decided to nationalize it (how ironic!).

Because he realised he could not afford a full-scale repression against the SIDOR workers.


The Venezuelan bourgeoisie are the ones attempting to discredit and overthrow Chavez and his government. They are not on the same side.


Yes, this is called an hegemonic crisis. The Venezolan bourgeoisie is unable to run its own State; it is the dominant class, but it fails as a ruling class. That's the material base of Chávez's leadership; it leads the bourgeois State because the bourgeoisie is incapable of doing it.


Yes, they should. They should denounce corruption, bureaucrats and ministers attempting to dismantle the bolivarian revolution.

There is no such thing as a "bolivarian" revolution. Either it is a proletarian revolution, or it is another epiphenomenon of the internal strives of Latin American bourgeoisies.

The problem is, those ministers, governors, and bureaucrats, are doing the right thing from the point of view of the State. That's why, even if Chávez is absolutely sincere, he cannot win by relying on his State apparatchiniks, who will always, given enough time, take the State's perspective.

Luís Henrique

[Herman]

Chavez, personally, is not a bourgeois. I doubt that he is able to think outside bourgeois categories, though. He dreams about building an independent center of power in Venezuela, which cannot work.Not being a marxist does not mean that he is not a socialist. He might not center around his ideas the class character of society, but there is nothing wrong with that. Theoretically it might be wrong, but it does not stop him from wanting to achieve socialism.


The Venezolan State is bourgeois, of course. How can it be anything else? Do you think it is a proletarian State?No, I think it is a mix of both. It has elements of a proletarian state (right to recall, common use of referenda, local power in the form of communal councils) and elements of a bourgeois state (national assembly, multi-party system).


Even if it is true that Venezolan workers are more conscious and revolutionary than ever, what does it have to to with the Venezolan State? Proletarian consciousness is not a function of the State.No, it isn't a function of the state. However, do you think it is coincidence that, when Chavez was elected for the first time, and from then on, the workers became more conscious of their needs? The use of propaganda, the state machinery, the party and other things have created an atmosphere of social change. It has roused workers to demand more rights and power. In some cases, this has been succesful. In other cases, it has not.


The governor is a member of Chávez's party. The State, obviously, isn't "monolithic", but it certainly is unified, and its unity is given by its function as a tool for capitalista acumulation.The governor is a member of the party, yes. This does not mean that they think exactly the same about everything. The governor has relative independence when it comes to situations like this. Again, the party and the state are not monolithic. Individuals make up the state and the party, all of them with different ideas and thoughts. The same applies to the ministry of labour.


Because he realised he could not afford a full-scale repression against the SIDOR workers.No, because he was realized that it was right to do so.


Yes, this is called an hegemonic crisis. The Venezolan bourgeoisie is unable to run its own State; it is the dominant class, but it fails as a ruling class. That's the material base of Chávez's leadership; it leads the bourgeois State because the bourgeoisie is incapable of doing it.This makes no sense. We've established that Chavez himself is not bourgeois, and you've just said that the bourgeoisie cannot run the state... so wouldn't that mean that the state then is not bourgeois? Since the bourgeoisie do not control it, how can it be a bourgeois state?


There is no such thing as a "bolivarian" revolution. Either it is a proletarian revolution, or it is another epiphenomenon of the internal strives of Latin American bourgeoisies.It is more of the former (proletarian revolution) rather than the latter, though it is not anything close to what happened in 1917 Russia. It is a process, a movement with many contradictions that should be studied and respected. Its' gains should be defended; its' problems criticized.

[Zurdito]

[quote]Not being a marxist does not mean that he is not a socialist. He might not center around his ideas the class character of society, but there is nothing wrong with that. Theoretically it might be wrong, but it does not stop him from wanting to achieve socialism.

it just means he can't acheive it in reality, as his strategy will eventually degenrate or be defeated from th outside.


No, it isn't a function of the state. However, do you think it is coincidence that, when Chavez was elected for the first time, and from then on, the workers became more conscious of their needs? The use of propaganda, the state machinery, the party and other things have created an atmosphere of social change. It has roused workers to demand more rights and power. In some cases, this has been succesful. In other cases, it has not.

Wellf irstly Chavez was elected on a programme of radical change (or radical rhetoric should I say), showing that indeed the ddemand for this did exist before he was elected, however he just managed to succesfully take the lead of that movement. If you are a marxist you believe that class struggle si the driving force of history, not "great men". Therefore Chavez leans on the working class, and his election represented the amount of ground the working class had gained for itself against the bourgeoisie at that time. he does not create the class struggle he jsut finds a place within it.

now leaing on from this, like I said before, Chavez wants to build a new kind of capitalism in Venezuela, he wants a "second independence", a "new fatherland". in this way, some actions he takes may be beyond the consciousness of the mass of workers. the borugeoisie of a semi-colonial nation, if it is to make inroads against imperialism, must lean on the popular classes in that coutnry. obvioulsy as revolutionaries we have to engage with people's support of anti-imperialist leaders, and at times this process can help move class consciousness forward and therefore si a good time for us to build. but that doesn't make the leaders of "revolution" our friends, rather it means that out of their own class interest - semicolonial bourgeoisie linked to sectors being suffocated by imperialism - they are forced to paly a dangerous game whereby they set in motiona radicalisation of the working class which they cannot then keep control of as they would like to.

what revolutionaries should do is cheer progressive reforms, and then demand the leaders go further, in order to expose them, and we msut denounce when they repress workers. what we should not do is help them keep the situation "under control" and rein in the working class when they want to.


The governor is a member of the party, yes. This does not mean that they think exactly the same about everything. The governor has relative independence when it comes to situations like this. Again, the party and the state are not monolithic. Individuals make up the state and the party, all of them with different ideas and thoughts. The same applies to the ministry of labour.

Why didn't chavez dismiss him immediately? Why didn't he condemnd the National Guard's actions for 23 days?


This makes no sense. We've established that Chavez himself is not bourgeois, and you've just said that the bourgeoisie cannot run the state... so wouldn't that mean that the state then is not bourgeois? Since the bourgeoisie do not control it, how can it be a bourgeois state?

Bonapartism is when the bourgeoisie hands power to someone they don't imemdiately control, in order to put an end to a crisis. They scacrifice some of their class in order to save the system as a whole.

The state however, remains the one which was estbalished byt he borugeoisie in direct opposition to the proletariat. As long as the state is able to repress workers then no speculations about Chavez's inner personal beliefs matter anything.


It is more of the former (proletarian revolution) rather than the latter, though it is not anything close to what happened in 1917 Russia. It is a process, a movement with many contradictions that should be studied and respected. Its' gains should be defended; its' problems criticized.

But yet you don't criticise the problems. Workers have to fight for 15 months against the government and against their bourgeois bosses just for a decent wage and decent working conditions, and then when the miltiant independent action of the working class forces the government to take action in order to prevent chaos spreading, you present this as the government doing the "right thing" because they are good people. That is idealistic, the idea that politics works this way has nothing to do with the view of class struggle as the driving force of history.

[Herman]

it just means he can't acheive it in reality, as his strategy will eventually degenrate or be defeated from th outside.

Obviously, the national bourgeoisie and foreign imperialism will stop at nothing to crush the bolivarian revolution. Both of your situations might be possible, but i'm willing to risk supporting that movement critically. If in the end I am wrong, I will admit that I was mistaken.


Wellf irstly Chavez was elected on a programme of radical change (or radical rhetoric should I say), showing that indeed the ddemand for this did exist before he was elected,

Actually the first time he was elected his proposals were rather tame and social-democratic in nature. If any "demand" for radical change existed, it was very little in the beginning. As the changes touched deeply in many sections of Venezuelan society, it became clear that moderate centre left changes weren't enough to truly allow people to have a voice and proper representation. This has lead to the radicalization of the bolivarian revolution.


however he just managed to succesfully take the lead of that movement. If you are a marxist you believe that class struggle si the driving force of history, not "great men".

Yes, history is not made by "great men", but by class struggle, the motor of history. However, the form and shape that class struggle takes varies differently depending on the place, situation and conditions. Class struggle exists everywhere, but not in the same way, in the same shape.


Therefore Chavez leans on the working class, and his election represented the amount of ground the working class had gained for itself against the bourgeoisie at that time. he does not create the class struggle he jsut finds a place within it.

Yes, he does find a place in it. However, classes are made up by individual workers, who exert some influence. Every individual makes up the class they belong to, and so their efforts also depend on the amount of power they have or attempt to gain. As you have pointed out, they chose Chavez as their representative. They, as a class, set their efforts to choose Chavez. Whether they chose wisely or not, is what we're discussing.


now leaing on from this, like I said before, Chavez wants to build a new kind of capitalism in Venezuela, he wants a "second independence", a "new fatherland". in this way, some actions he takes may be beyond the consciousness of the mass of workers. the borugeoisie of a semi-colonial nation, if it is to make inroads against imperialism, must lean on the popular classes in that coutnry. obvioulsy as revolutionaries we have to engage with people's support of anti-imperialist leaders, and at times this process can help move class consciousness forward and therefore si a good time for us to build. but that doesn't make the leaders of "revolution" our friends, rather it means that out of their own class interest - semicolonial bourgeoisie linked to sectors being suffocated by imperialism - they are forced to paly a dangerous game whereby they set in motiona radicalisation of the working class which they cannot then keep control of as they would like to.

This is nonsense. The bourgeoisie in Venezuela did not choose Chavez. They did not organize some secret conspiracy to place Chavez in power as a puppet. Look at how they criticize him all the time! They even attempted a coup in 2002 which almost succeeded! And guess who were the ones who went out in the streets, organized very efficiently by the bolivarian circles? The workers, the poor and the peasants! Massive amounts of people went out to declare illegal what had happened (and this was back when Chavez still did not talk about wanting socialism!).


what revolutionaries should do is cheer progressive reforms, and then demand the leaders go further, in order to expose them, and we msut denounce when they repress workers. what we should not do is help them keep the situation "under control" and rein in the working class when they want to.

I don't recall having supported the repression of SIDOR workers, or the repression of any workers in general. I've always kept the belief that it's the bureaucrats, careerists and such that attempt to keep things "under control". This is a bit off-topic but, when a strike was organized in the airport of Barcelona, the union leaders actually sided with the capitalists and state bureaucrats, saying that the airport workers were being "irresponsible" (and there were a few workers who also thought that the strike had gone for too long, despite that it had lasted only two or three days). I denounced that, seeing that the union leadership had completely betrayed their own rank and file! I tell you, I was shocked to see that. It's one of the events which drove me to distrust the current trade union leadership in Spain.


Why didn't chavez dismiss him immediately? Why didn't he condemnd the National Guard's actions for 23 days?

I agree, he should have dismissed the minister and anyone related to the incident, as well as condemn the actions of the National Guard. However, he has responded to the incident by approving a law which will make, in his own words, the National Guard more "humanitarian". Whether this is true or not, we will see.


Bonapartism is when the bourgeoisie hands power to someone they don't imemdiately control, in order to put an end to a crisis. They scacrifice some of their class in order to save the system as a whole.

I've always heard the term "Bonapartist" used against Trotsky. It's silly really, because the bourgeoisie did not "choose" Chavez to be president.


The state however, remains the one which was estbalished byt he borugeoisie in direct opposition to the proletariat. As long as the state is able to repress workers then no speculations about Chavez's inner personal beliefs matter anything.

Like I said, the state is not bourgeois. It has elements of a genuine direct democracy (referenda, right to recall, communal power) and it has also elements of the old system (parliament, multi-party system). It's a strange mix with many contradictions. I do not know what to call it, but eventually a suitable term will emerge.


But yet you don't criticise the problems. Workers have to fight for 15 months against the government and against their bourgeois bosses just for a decent wage and decent working conditions,

I do criticize the problems, and the things that many careerist politicans say in the PSUV. I criticize how the old factory owners take away important material and documents from the workers when they decide to occupy it. I criticize the delay and general hostility by some bureaucrats and ministers. I criticize the attempt to curb workers rights by some governors, regardless whether they belong to one party of another. I criticize the bolivarian revolution in general for not going far enough. I criticize Chavez for not making himself clear, and to stop the ambiguous comments he makes.


and then when the miltiant independent action of the working class forces the government to take action in order to prevent chaos spreading, you present this as the government doing the "right thing" because they are good people.

Whether they wanted to "prevent chaos" or "do the right thing" is irrelevant, as we cannot read their minds. However, the fact that SIDOR has at last been nationalized is a good thing, and i'm glad Chavez decided to nationalize it. If you want to know what they're doing right now, go to the Spanish section of Revleft. I posted an interesting article on what they're planning to do.


That is idealistic, the idea that politics works this way has nothing to do with the view of class struggle as the driving force of history.

As I said, class struggle takes different shapes and forms, at times we don't even recognize that class struggle is even happening.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I wonder what Chirino will say about the upcoming elections. If he vocally goes against voting for the "Patriotic Alliance" (PSUV, PCV, PPT, etc.) by shifting to Podemos or MAS, well...

[ern]

I agree with those who say Chavez is a bourgeois pure and simple. He is and was part of the state military apparatus. He is the figurehead of the bourgeois state in Venezuela. At the most fundamental level his government is the same as all bourgeois governments whether they call themselves: socialist, communist, democratic, liberal, conservative or fascist: it organises the exploitation of the working class; maintains the repressive apparatus and uses it against the class, it defends the imperialist interests of the venezuelan ruling class for example the threats against Colombia; it maintains the national army and is doing all it can to militarise the whole of society in order to better drag the working class and the poor off to be slaughtered in the name of the Bolivarian revolution. Chavez and his fraction may speak about socialism for the 21st century but it does so with its iron heel firmly pressing down on the necks of the proletariat and poor. He is the present face of Venezuelan state capitalism. The only difference is that this military man dresses it up in radical clothes.