Which should be a communist's attitude towards Chávez's populism?

[el_chavista]

Should a communist stay apart from populism or should he/she infiltrate in the Bolivarian movement to do his/her ideological work?

[Dros]

Should a communist stay apart from populism or should he/she infiltrate in the Bolivarian movement to do his/her ideological work?

Bolivarianism is not socialist/communist and it is not an ideology that can lead to radical and emancipatory change in the world. I don't think entryism is a legitimate tactic so I would say that you should avoid Bolivarian groups.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Should a communist stay apart from populism or should he/she infiltrate in the Bolivarian movement to do his/her ideological work?

What purpose would entryism serve exactly? Reconstituting the ideological make up of the Bolivarian movement can do little to further your cause as it only helps strenghten the view that bourgeois parliamentarianism can bring change and/or that revolution can be brought down from above.

Rather, the communists should be working on the ground. In the trade unions, in the factories, in the slums.

[nvm]

I don't think entryism is a legitimate tactic so I would say that you should avoid Bolivarian groups.

Ya ok so we should stay apart from chavez's mass organization where all the working class people are and cry socialism with our little sect.
I hate such sectarian attitudes as they don't accomplish anything in the end.
The best thing for the Venezuelan communists to do is to work inside Chavez's organization where they can find a lot of working class people seeking for change and
promote Marxist-Leninist ideas. We should critically support Chavez and as I said promote Marxism-Leninism through his mass organization.

[gla22]

Ya ok so we should stay apart from chavez's mass organization where all the working class people are and cry socialism with our little sect.
I hate such sectarian attitudes as they don't accomplish anything in the end.
The best thing for the Venezuelan communists to do is to work inside Chavez's organization where they can find a lot of working class people seeking for change and
promote Marxist-Leninist ideas. We should critically support Chavez and as I said promote Marxism-Leninism through his mass organization.



agree 100%. Critical support.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Ya ok so we should stay apart from chavez's mass organization where all the working class people are and cry socialism with our little sect.

How about working in the trade unions, the workplaces, the streets where the real workers are. Practicing entryism into populist party can do very little.


The best thing for the Venezuelan communists to do is to work inside Chavez's organization where they can find a lot of working class people seeking for change and promote Marxist-Leninist ideas.

I'm no expert on Bolivarianism, but how connected to the workers are the MVR (or more recently the PSUV)? If, like the Labour Parties in much of Europe, they are completely isolated from the working class but still manage to suceed off the back of populism, what is the purpose of practicing entryism?


We should critically support Chavez and as I said promote Marxism-Leninism through his mass organization.

I say we show critical support for Chavez, but in the workers own organs, not in and through his populist and social-democratic party/parties.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Agreed. The most notable remark that shows Chavez's true nature is the one I deliberately quoted for "sound bite" purposes:

“We know that one of Karl Marx's proposals was precisely that of the dictatorship of the proletariat, but that is not viable [...]”

[Dros]

I hate such sectarian attitudes as they don't accomplish anything in the end.

Is that an argument or just a silly assertion without any pretense of support.


The best thing for the Venezuelan communists to do is to work inside Chavez's organization where they can find a lot of working class people seeking for change and promote Marxist-Leninist ideas.

Why? Are Chavez's "mass organizations" capable of leading a radical and fundamentally emancipatory struggle against capitalism? If yes why? If no, why bother?

Marxist-Leninists in Venezuela should work towards establishing a Vanguard party! If they recruit from amongst Chavez's organizations, that's fine. However, it is pragmatic and opportunistic to just use entryism and it will lead to the failure of a revolutionary movement in Venezuela.


We should critically support Chavez and as I said promote Marxism-Leninism through his mass organization.

I support Chavez insofar as he is an anti-imperialist. I support that element of Chavez's policies. However, don't be confused. He is not a Communist. His orientation is a one that is in line with the interests of the national bourgeois class and is in opposition to the US imperialist class. While that makes his movement progressive in the historical sense, it also means that no organs of the Bolivarian revolution will be able to lead a Communist movement dedicated to creating a classless society.

[nvm]

How about working in the trade unions, the workplaces, the streets where the real workers are. Practicing entryism into populist party can do very little.

the people in the trade unions, workplaces and streets all support Chavez and the big majority is in the psuv. The PSUV has more than 6 million members, which are working class and most of them in urban centers. So good like finding "real" workers who are not in the PSUV.





I'm no expert on Bolivarianism, but how connected to the workers are the MVR (or more recently the PSUV)? If, like the Labour Parties in much of Europe, they are completely isolated from the working class but still manage to suceed off the back of populism, what is the purpose of practicing entryism?


I responded to your first question above. And the purpose of practicing entrism in a mass organization like the PSUV is pretty obvious. To reach out to the majority of the Venezuelan workers!




I say we show critical support for Chavez, but in the workers own organs, not in and through his populist and social-democratic party/parties.

So if the party which is social-democratic does something right like say nationalize a key industry , you wont support it?What kind of mentality is this.

[nvm]

Is that an argument or just a silly assertion without any pretense of support.

No it is reality.



Why? Are Chavez's "mass organizations" capable of leading a radical and fundamentally emancipatory struggle against capitalism? If yes why? If no, why bother?
Because that's where 6 million workers are. Almost the whole working class of Venezuela. So by practicing entrism in the PSUV you can quickly transform in a revolutionary situation like now, the PSUV into a party that is going to led "a radical and fundamentally emancipatory struggle against capitalism".




Marxist-Leninists in Venezuela should work towards establishing a Vanguard party! If they recruit from amongst Chavez's organizations, that's fine. However, it is pragmatic and opportunistic to just use entryism and it will lead to the failure of a revolutionary movement in Venezuela.

How will it lead to the failure of a revolutionary movement in Venezuela?
Ok build a vanguard party which is far from the workers.




I support Chavez insofar as he is an anti-imperialist. I support that element of Chavez's policies. However, don't be confused. He is not a Communist. His orientation is a one that is in line with the interests of the national bourgeois class and is in opposition to the US imperialist class. While that makes his movement progressive in the historical sense, it also means that no organs of the Bolivarian revolution will be able to lead a Communist movement dedicated to creating a classless society.


How is his orientation in line with the interest of the national bourgeois class? Are you shitting me? Who tried to make a coup in 2002? The USA and the national Borgeois.

[Niccolò Rossi]

the people in the trade unions, workplaces and streets all support Chavez and the big majority is in the psuv. The PSUV has more than 6 million members, which are working class and most of them in urban centers. So good like finding "real" workers who are not in the PSUV.

We need to reach out to the workers, not reach down to them. Whilst progress can be made in terms of support via entryism it does not further our cause. All it does is help perpetuate the view that "socialism" (what ever that may be) can be achieved by bourgeois parliamenary means in and through the actions of our "socialist" policy makers.

We are today seeing the effects of putting faith in these social-democrats bringing "socialism from above". Whilst real progress has been made we can see it's limits in Chavez's not to long past attempted power grabs and his violent quashing of workers actions (SIDOR workers).

It is time the communists made themselves heard in Venezuela instead of feeling obliged to hug up to Chavez for support.


So if the party which is social-democratic does something right like say nationalize a key industry, you wont support it? What kind of mentality is this.

I said we should offer critical support! What don't you understand about that?

If the Chavez government is making progress we should support it as such. However, just about the only progress we are seeing out of Venezuela is the communal councils and factory committees. These organisations are primarily the result of the workers and need to be supported and worked through.

On an unrelated note I would not call state capitalist nationalisation progressive in comparison to the Communal Councils and Factory Committees.

[nvm]

We need to reach out to the workers, not reach down to them. Whilst progress can be made in terms of support via entryism it does not further our cause. All it does is help perpetuate the view that "socialism" (what ever that may be) can be achieved by bourgeois parliamenary means in and through the actions of our "socialist" policy makers.

No it is not like that. By using entrism we reach out to the rank and file workers who are the vast majority of the membership and through doing work with them we agitate them to take control of the party overthrow the bureaucrats and move to socialism NOT through parliamentarism necessarily.


We are today seeing the effects of putting faith in these social-democrats bringing "socialism from above".
Well we don't want socialism from above that is why we perform entrism . In order to transform PSUV from below!


Whilst real progress has been made we can see it's limits in Chavez's not to long past attempted power grabs and his violent quashing of workers actions (SIDOR workers).

Stop spreading lies Chavez did not squash the workers. It was the police administration which is a remnant of the old state apparatus. And we critisize Chavez for having made not that many changes in the old bourgeois state apparatus. And that is more constructive(critisizing from inside) than forming a separate party and oppossing him completely with no echo to the majority of the working class.




I said we should offer critical support! What don't you understand about that? If the Chavez government is making progress we should support it as such. However, just about the only progress we are seeing out of Venezuela is the communal councils and factory committees. These organisations are primarily the result of the workers and need to be supported and worked through.

We partly agree. I would add that the nationalization of the biggest part of the oil and natural gas, SIDOR and the cement factories and also some allocation of land are also positive things along with communal councils and factory comittees.Of course in order to make more progress in Venezuela is to work inside the PSUV and push , agitate and work with the rank and file membership. Every other method will not have an echoe to the working class.

My friend Marx also adds.


In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole? The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties.
They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.
They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.


taken from the Communist Manifesto

[BIG BROTHER]

I think lollipop got it right.

I too, support any gains that the working class has achieved through the bolivarian revolution and Chavez. Meaning I know Chavez won't bring socialism, but I defend any the anti-imperialists actions, and progresive changes he has made.

But of course the masses should continue moving foward to socialism when Chavez no longer helps them.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Didn't the PSUV expel en masse a whole segment of Trot entryists?

[nvm]

Didn't the PSUV expel en masse a whole segment of Trot entryists?

No I haven't heard about something like that.
The IMT's section there is still working inside the PSUV and has faced no such problems from what I know.
Also note that even though our organization there is a couple or so years old it has hundreds of members and thousands of workers inside the PSUV are influenced by our comrades . The IMT is playing a major role as the left wing of the party and could potentially achieve big things there. Also note that our comrades participate(d) in factory occupations . That proves the superiority of our tactics .
Now let's hear about how the Communist sects influence the workers...

[Niccolò Rossi]

No it is not like that. By using entrism we reach out to the rank and file workers who are the vast majority of the membership and through doing work with them we agitate them to take control of the party overthrow the bureaucrats and move to socialism NOT through parliamentarism necessarily.

Fair enough, I will surrender this point. But whilst entryism can be used, the communists must at all time offer the most criticism possible.


My friend Marx also adds.
In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole? The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties.
They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.
They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.
taken from the Communist Manifesto

Touche

[nvm]

the communists must at all time offer the most criticism possible.

Yes I agree!

Btw Read Alan Wood's analysis and criticism on Venezuela on www.marxist.com it is really good .

[Bastable]

um, whatever attitude you want to have, perhaps?

[turquino]

Bolivarianism is not socialist/communist and it is not an ideology that can lead to radical and emancipatory change in the world. I don't think entryism is a legitimate tactic so I would say that you should avoid Bolivarian groups.
How is Bolivarian socialism not socialist?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Fair enough, I will surrender this point. But whilst entryism can be used, the communists must at all time offer the most criticism possible.

Touche

Comrade, don't take that quote of Marx to heart too much. Apparently, Kautsky did in his renegade-era Social Democracy vs. Communism:

http://www.marx.org/archive/kautsky/1930s/demvscom/ch01.htm


Proceeding from this point of view, Marx and Engels sought to bring about the union of all elements participating in the class struggle for the liberation of the working class into a strong mass party. Before their arrival upon the scene, each of the various socialist leaders and thinkers had put forward their own distinct method for the solution of the social question and opposed all other socialists who would follow other methods. So it had come about that socialism had served only to divide the working class. Marx and Engels tried to unite it, not to add a Marxian sect to those already in the field.

We find emphasis of this already in the Communist Manifesto (1847). Speaking to their adherents, who called themselves communists, Marx and Engels said:

“The communists do not constitute a separate party, distinct from other working class parties.”

They demanded only that their adherents within the working class parties strive to develop “in advance of the rest of the masses of the proletariat an understanding of the. conditions, the process and the general consequences of the movement of the proletariat.”

Their actions were in line with this idea, as for example in the First International, which had very few Marxists but plenty of Proudhonists and, later, also Blanquists as well as British trade unionists, who knew little of socialism.

Marx and Engels understood well how to bring about a firm union between the world of socialist ideas and the labor movement. All truly working class parties of our time, which have arisen since the final quarter of the last century to take the place of preceding seas, rest upon this union. As working class parties they fight for the interests of the working class; as Socialist parties they wage the class struggle as a means of emancipation of all the oppressed and exploited, not of the wage earners alone.



Yes, we should work with REAL reformists within an SPD-type organization. No, that doesn't necessarily mean "entering" an establishment "reformist" party. For example, comrades like myself would work with pareconists in establishing a new "party" and work within that organization, even if the majority are reformist-minded (again, in the real and not welfarist sense).

[BIG BROTHER]

How is Bolivarian socialism not socialist?

Well for one, it focuses more on just selling Venezuela's oil in order to use the money for the welfare programs, buy cheap food, etc

I mean don't get me wrong its I support the gains that the working class has gained with the bolivarian revolution, but Venezuela should try become self-sufficient, among other things.

or just read this, i don't consider myself a maoist, but this article pretty much says the truth.

http://revcom.us/a/094/chavez-en.html

[nvm]

but Venezuela should try become self-sufficient,
Either that or try and build an international revolution so there can be exchange of goods and resources. South America is ideal for a truly socialist revolution. If Venezuela went socialist then that would trigger a whole series of revolutions in South America that even US imperialism cannot stop.

[BIG BROTHER]

Either that or try and build an international revolution so there can be exchange of goods and resources. South America is ideal for a truly socialist revolution. If Venezuela went socialist then that would trigger a whole series of revolutions in South America that even US imperialism cannot stop.

yea, but we gotta give chavez some credit. If the report that the interpool is true, then just like he's supporting FARC he's probably supporting some other guerrillas.

[RHIZOMES]

How is Bolivarian socialism not socialist?

Because the workers do not control the means of production.

[KC]

Because the workers do not control the means of production.

This isn't completely true; there are a lot of worker-run cooperatives operating in Venezuela. The problem, however, is that for all (or even most) cases this isn't true. There are still class antagonisms between the capitalists and the workers within these countries. The fight of the Sidor workers for the past year is a good example of the struggle that workers must participate in even under Chavez's administration and the Bolivarian "revolution".

In fact, I think the Sidor example is a great one in that it really showed the role that Chavez is playing. Chavez has stated before that the people aren't "ready" for socialism, citing the referendum loss as a good indicator of this. What he doesn't realize, however, is that the workers are more than ready to take control of the means of production and that they want to do it on their terms.

The renationalization of Sidor was a concession made by Chavez at a point when the situation escalated to a point where he was forced to act; his two options were either to renationalize the company, throw in some populist rhetoric and maintain support for his "revolution" or to not do so and openly go to the side of the reaction. It effectively showed that Chavez's position is not that of support of the working class and representation of the working and oppressed people of Venezuela, but as an attempt to mediate the differences between the capitalists and exploited in Venezuela in order to try to reconcile these differences. When he is pushed, he has so far taken the side of the workers in these struggles against the capitalists (although even in many of these cases he still plays the role of the mediator, nationalizing companies by buying them out instead of just doing it outright), but it has to make us wonder how far the working and oppressed people of Venezuela can push Chavez and his government before they turn to the side of reaction.

Chavez has stated that he does not want to become another Allende, but that's really the best outcome I see out of this. I don't think Chavez will be able to be pushed any further than Allende was, and I think that will ultimately be damaging to the movement in Venezuela (maybe not to the extent that it was in Chile, but damaging nonetheless).

[el_chavista]

Didn't the PSUV expel en masse a whole segment of Trot entryists?CCURA is a Trotskist fraction (related to the Moreno's Argentine Trotskists) in the main labor union UNT whose leader Orlando Chirino (he himself failed in trying to be a president of the UNT) got a personal(?) misunderstanding with Chávez. Now they don't want to attend Chávez's callings for a Unified Labor Union. But they never adhered the PSUV as the CMR(Corriente Marxista Revolucionaria)-El Militante (IMT) did.

[Destroy capitalism]

A meeting I was at last weekend, report from http://www.communistpartyofireland.ie/c-carolus.html
Dr Carolus Wimmer is the international secretary of the Communist Party of Venezuela, a deputy in the Parliament of Venezuela, and vice-president of the Latin American Parliament.

Defeat for the USA: Victory for Latin America

by Mary Horton

Carolus Wimmer visited Ireland on 10 and 11 May to give this year’s James Connolly Memorial Lecture, under the title “Workers leading the struggle against imperialism.”
Carolus gave a lecture that started by recognising the common factors of colonial oppression in Ireland and Venezuela and developed into a Marxist-Leninist clarification of what is happening in the Latin American countries at the present time. Of particular interest is the solidarity that is developing between the thirty-three countries against the might of American imperialism.
The changes that have taken place in Venezuela are revolutionary, but it is not yet a revolution: the developments are full of potential, and full of danger. Within Latin America the changes have been brought about with a combination of charismatic personalities, mass movement, and the right to self-determination (some with fascist tendencies). He told the audience how Chávez, a remarkable, hard-working and charismatic person, wanted the Communist Party of Venezuela to dissolve itself and to join one big amorphous party. An extraordinary congress of the party was held, and they decided that this was not the time to dissolve, that the new party had no clear definition, many of its leaders were middle-class, and groups inside it did not understand that socialism was needed and that the working class would have to take the leading role.
The communist party, though small, is playing a leading role in developments. Changes have taken place that allow Carolus to go into the steel works and other places of work to have conferences there about the role of the working class and socialism. He spoke about the communist influence in the armed forces and the need to win them for the changes that are taking place. The Communist Party of Chile organises a seminar every two years relating to the army. Carolus took an admiral, a colonel and another member of the forces to this seminar. He said: “Imagine: they were surrounded by communists; it’s a bit like us being surrounded by nuns.”
He spoke of Colombia and how that country is being used by the United States as a base for controlling all Latin America, and more recently when they attacked the FARC in Ecuador, almost bringing Venezuela and Ecuador into an armed conflict with Colombia—just what the United States wanted, but didn’t get. Also how they used the Organisation of American States to intervene in Venezuela. In fact he emphasised the need to repeat and repeat the defeats that the United States is having. In 2000 at a meeting of thirty-four countries from Latin America, thirty-three signed an agreement, but one refused to sign; that was Chávez for Venezuela; he was considered to be “loco.” In 2006 again thirty-three signed and one refused to sign; and that one was the USA. This was yet another defeat for the United States.
Along with the defeats that the United States is having in Iraq and economically, these are things that we must constantly drive home, daily, weekly. The capitalist media drive home working-class weaknesses, and we must do the opposite. At the present time most of the media in Venezuela are still in the hands of the very wealthy, who use every opportunity to attack the changes that are being made. (Carolus brought his own camera crew with him, making sure that the visit to Europe would be recorded.)
Regarding the recent defeat of the referendum, Carolus said that Chávez had in effect dissolved his own electoral machine, so he could not draw upon that for support. Secondly, there was a great need for discussion, but there was more interest in decision-making than in discussion, so there was no time for discussion on a referendum that contained sixty-nine articles and many difficult decisions to be made, for example about the role of the armed forces and the election of the president. You had to vote “yes” or “no” to all sixty-nine. It was too problematic. What if you agreed with some and not others? And, he said, “the women’s movement were not even included.”
A final problem was that many of the leaders were not interested in the referendum but were preparing themselves for the elections in November. Then there was the role of the media, which used crude ant-communism to attack the changes. They told the people: “If Chávez wins you will lose your children, you will lose your freedom, you will lose your house: he will take it all.” The fear was great. The referendum was lost by a small minority, and three million people did not vote.
The changes that are happening in Venezuela are tremendous. They have re-nationalised oil, steel, cement companies, some land, telecommunications, electrical companies. They are working hand in hand with many Latin American countries, including Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Nicaragua, and Paraguay, and of course Cuba. But, as Carolus said, these are great opportunities but there are great problems, and they are constantly aware of the possible attack from the United States. Hillary Clinton criticised Bush because he did not win the war against Chávez. “And within there is corruption, bureaucracy, and inefficiency. How do we explain that the leaders who went up for election in November, one day they had no shoes and the next day they had shoes, houses, cars?”
How do you “do” socialism? We have no book to tell us this: for each country it is a different experience. We tried to copy Cuba, but that did not work. But Chávez clearly sees Cuba as an ally and thinks nothing of going in a helicopter and taking breakfast with Fidel, and now Raúl.
But we need Marxism, and we need to understand the history and the Bolivarian Revolution. As Rosa Luxemburg said, we will have either barbarism or socialism. We want socialism.
In the meantime the task is to eliminate poverty. For the first time ever, poor people have access to a doctor, mostly Cuban doctors. We are doing oil for doctors, food for oil; we are providing help for Bolivia. We are trying to offset the terrible problems that food shortages and high prices are bringing. Venezuela is combining theory with practice. We have to win: there is no other chance. And we are looking at environmental issues regarding gas and oil; even small things such as giving everyone free long-life light-bulbs are important. Of course such things would mean nothing to the rich.
It was with great clarity that Carolus identified the changes that are taking place, and the problems that the people are facing. The people of Latin America are leading the way in the fight against imperialism, and their experiences will be a light ahead for us to follow, even though in this part of the world we have to find our own solutions.
After the meeting Carolus laid a wreath at Arbour Hill, where the remains of James Connolly and his comrades are laid.
On the Sunday Carolus gave an oration in London on the anniversary of the birth of the founder of scientific socialism at the graveside of Karl Marx in Highgate Cemetery. International solidarity lives on. La luta continua.

■ Home page (http://www.communistpartyofireland.ie/index.html#a8) > Defeat for the USA: Victory for Latin AmericaBaile (http://www.communistpartyofireland.ie/index.html#a8) > Defeat for the USA: Victory for Latin America

[Dros]

No it is reality.

All just assume you choose not to say anything substantive here because you can't.


Because that's where 6 million workers are. Almost the whole working class of Venezuela. So by practicing entrism in the PSUV you can quickly transform in a revolutionary situation

That conclusion does not follow from your premise.


like now,

:lol::lol::lol:

How is this a revolutionary situation?


the PSUV into a party that is going to led "a radical and fundamentally emancipatory struggle against capitalism".

That's where you're fundamentally mistaken. The PSUV is not a party of professional revolutionaries and there is no way that it will become one. I understand that an independent vanguard party could and should cooperate with members of the PSUV and even the PSUV itself and that it should certainly attempt to radicalize and recruit individuals from that organization.


How will it lead to the failure of a revolutionary movement in Venezuela?

Because what is necessary to make a revolution is a worker's vanguard. Attempting to "transform" a "socialist" party into a Communist vanguard will necessarily end in failure.


Ok build a vanguard party which is far from the workers.

Don't be dull.


How is his orientation in line with the interest of the national bourgeois class? Are you shitting me? Who tried to make a coup in 2002? The USA and the national Borgeois.[/QUOTE]

His interests are aligned with certain elements of the national bourgeoisie who benefit from oil revenue more now than they did when Venezuela was dominated by US imperialism.

[Faceless]

In fact, I think the Sidor example is a great one in that it really showed the role that Chavez is playing. Chavez has stated before that the people aren't "ready" for socialism, citing the referendum loss as a good indicator of this. What he doesn't realize, however, is that the workers are more than ready to take control of the means of production and that they want to do it on their terms.

The renationalization of Sidor was a concession made by Chavez at a point when the situation escalated to a point where he was forced to act; his two options were either to renationalize the company, throw in some populist rhetoric and maintain support for his "revolution" or to not do so and openly go to the side of the reaction. It effectively showed that Chavez's position is not that of support of the working class and representation of the working and oppressed people of Venezuela, but as an attempt to mediate the differences between the capitalists and exploited in Venezuela in order to try to reconcile these differences. When he is pushed, he has so far taken the side of the workers in these struggles against the capitalists (although even in many of these cases he still plays the role of the mediator, nationalizing companies by buying them out instead of just doing it outright), but it has to make us wonder how far the working and oppressed people of Venezuela can push Chavez and his government before they turn to the side of reaction.

Chavez has stated that he does not want to become another Allende, but that's really the best outcome I see out of this. I don't think Chavez will be able to be pushed any further than Allende was, and I think that will ultimately be damaging to the movement in Venezuela (maybe not to the extent that it was in Chile, but damaging nonetheless).

Whilst I don't disagree with some of what you are saying, take another look at the way you have said it:

On the one hand you concede that Chavez has been pressured by the working class to renationalise Sidor, along with other sections of the economy - over the heads of other sections of the state apparatus (such as the ministry of labour). If you look at the celebrations of the Sidor workers this was rightly perceived as a massive victory on their part.

When else but in real, living revolutions do we see this level of activity from the poor and working class masses? But do you see how supersilious it may seem to call this a "revolution" in inverted commas? To the working classes, this is a their, real revolution, where they are actively intervening in the political process and Chavez represents them. In place of praise for the progressive measures and a sense of urgency to push further forwards, your tone is so negative and hyper-critical - insisting that Chavez will go over to the side of reaction even though Venezuelans support him.

It reminds me of Chirino who didn't support workers struggles for nationalisation because to him Chavez is just another "populist" and there is no point appealing to a populist to nationalise anything. The logical conclusion is that workers should give up putting pressure on Chavez because he is just another bourgeois democrat in a long line of democrats. I'm not disagreeing with what you say, per se, just the way you have said it. It is the wrong tone to take with socialist, pro-Chavez workers, and marxists would go nowhere by using it. It is not a matter of principle to only draw out from a contradictory character like Chavez what we are against. There is much to be gained in putting our programme forward in a positive manner, so that Bolivarian workers see that they have the friendly hand of an ally extended to them, not just a wagging finger berating them for their mistakes.

To drosera:

His interests are aligned with certain elements of the national bourgeoisie who benefit from oil revenue more now than they did when Venezuela was dominated by US imperialism.

Show me one "national bourgeois" of any significance who supports Chavez' programme of reforms, and I'll find a hundred racist pro-American "national bourgeois" who hate Chavez and his supporters with a passion. nvm has just shown that almost the entire working class is in the PSUV, and that Chavez massively bases himself on the working masses. The onus ought to be on you to find your mythical "vanguard of the working class" which remains outside of that party!!

nvm has pretty much summed up the rest.

[AGITprop]

Well here we go again :)

I don;t even know where to start.

El Chavista, I am a big supporter of the progress achieved through Chavez, yet I am extremely critical of Venezuela right now. Chavez is no Communist, we cannot believe otherwise. He's just a confused man with good intentions.

I do on the other hand, fully support the PSUV as it is a socialist party supported by a mass of workers, over 6 million. There are right wing elements in the party, in the bureaucracy even, who want to water down the party's policies. The PSUV can very possibly be a revolutionary party, but first we must agitate the workers in the party to expel the reformist trash who is putting up barriers day by day in the road toward revolution.

Since you are in Caracas, I'd like to know how you feel about what you see on a daily basis.

[KC]

On the one hand you concede that Chavez has been pressured by the working class to renationalise Sidor, along with other sections of the economy - over the heads of other sections of the state apparatus (such as the ministry of labour). If you look at the celebrations of the Sidor workers this was rightly perceived as a massive victory on their part.

Of course it was, and I never said otherwise.


When else but in real, living revolutions do we see this level of activity from the poor and working class masses?

Well, there have been plenty of strike actions by workers for radical demands that have led to successes by workers; that does not mean that there is a revolution, and claiming this to be one is incorrect, as there has been no overthrowing of capitalism in general throughout the country. As I said before, the cases where companies have been nationalized and socialized are few and are the exception rather than the rule.


To the working classes, this is a their, real revolution, where they are actively intervening in the political process and Chavez represents them.

There are two problems with this statement:

1. There is no actual political revolution to overthrow the bourgeois class in Venezuela. What there is is an extremely contradictory movement filled with forced buyout nationalizations, some socialization, some remaining private, some nationalized industries run in the same manner as if it were private, etc...
2. The fact that the workers had to get fired upon by the national guard before Chavez did anything shows that my earlier analysis is correct and the statement that Chavez "represents them" as misguided.


In place of praise for the progressive measures and a sense of urgency to push further forwards, your tone is so negative and hyper-critical - insisting that Chavez will go over to the side of reaction even though Venezuelans support him.

Well, yes, this is a conclusion I am drawing based on similar past events which have happened in South America along with the way that Chavez and his administration has presented themselves and acted throughout the past couple of years.

However, I don't really see my tone has "hyper-critical". Nor did I ever "insist" that he will. I merely suspect that he will.


It reminds me of Chirino who didn't support workers struggles for nationalisation because to him Chavez is just another "populist" and there is no point appealing to a populist to nationalise anything. The logical conclusion is that workers should give up putting pressure on Chavez because he is just another bourgeois democrat in a long line of democrats. I'm not disagreeing with what you say, per se, just the way you have said it.

I don't think my position can be compared to the ultra-leftist statements made by Chirino, nor can it be compared to his position in general.


It is the wrong tone to take with socialist, pro-Chavez workers

Well, I'm not talking to Venezuelan Chavistas. I'm talking to revolutionary Marxists.


Show me one "national bourgeois" of any significance who supports Chavez' programme of reforms

That was not the argument that I was putting forward. The reason that capitalists are against Chavez is because of what he represents in their eyes; namely, the Bolivarian revolution, which has an anti-imperialist and generally "anti-capitalist" character.

What I was saying was drawn from my earlier analysis of the situation. By becoming a mediator between classes, Chavez is effectively keeping the movement from moving to a higher level of consciousness while at the same time protecting bourgeois property relations within the country (which is why the bourgeois state apparatus still exists, for example, and why workers aren't truly in power, and which is also why his referendum loss made him come to the conclusion that workers "aren't ready for socialism," which is ludicrous).


nvm has just shown that almost the entire working class is in the PSUV, and that Chavez massively bases himself on the working masses. The onus ought to be on you to find your mythical "vanguard of the working class" which remains outside of that party!!

I never said a single word about the PSUV or what position we should take on it. Stop drawing conclusions based on assumptions that you have made about what I believe.

[Illus]

Reformism is by definition doing something radical and then pretending it's revolutionary, which is by definition what Chavez is doing. Ultra-leftist welfare capitalism is not the dictatorship of the proletariat, believe me on that, if it were it would be obvious.

[Faceless]

I never said a single word about the PSUV or what position we should take on it. Stop drawing conclusions based on assumptions that you have made about what I believe.

Don't worry: that last part was aimed at drosera, not you.

[piet11111]

my concern is that everything Chavez has done was because of pressure from the working people's not from his own will.
Chavez is trying to keep the working people down to prevent an actual revolution from happening.

Chavez needs to be replaced before he really becomes an anchor to the growth of the left in Venezuela and south America.

[KC]

Don't worry: that last part was aimed at drosera, not you.

Ah, sorry, I didn't see that.


my concern is that everything Chavez has done was because of pressure from the working people's not from his own will.

I don't think this is completely true; Chavez would not have become who he has become if he did not want to change the state of the country to some extent; I just don't think that he is a socialist revolutionary.


Chavez is trying to keep the working people down to prevent an actual revolution from happening.

I don't really think it's really at that point yet. I don't really see Chavez as consciously "holding back" or "putting down" the workers and their allies; I see it more in the sense that he is attempting to implement a certain type of "revolution" in the country and is attempting to steer workers towards that vision. This is why he is so able to make concessions such as the Sidor example and why I believe he actually does mean what he says a lot of times.

I certainly wouldn't consider him an "enemy of the people" as the above statement would make it sound like; that would be absolutist and would fail to analyze the contradictions developing within the Bolivarian movement and within Chavez himself.


Chavez needs to be replaced before he really becomes an anchor to the growth of the left in Venezuela and south America.

This statement is really divorced from the situation in Venezuela completely. Chavez will not be replaced by the working and exploited in Venezuela until he actually becomes reactionary, if that time comes.

[Dros]

Show me one "national bourgeois" of any significance who supports Chavez' programme of reforms, and I'll find a hundred racist pro-American "national bourgeois" who hate Chavez and his supporters with a passion.

So what? You just proved that Chavez is anti-imperialist which has been my position from the start.


nvm has just shown that almost the entire working class is in the PSUV, and that Chavez massively bases himself on the working masses.

That's true. In the United States, the vast majority of working class people are in the Democratic party which is a brutal, capitalist, imperialist, party that is totally enmeshed in and representative of the interests of the ruling class.


The onus ought to be on you to find your mythical "vanguard of the working class" which remains outside of that party!!

My whole point is that there isn't yet a vanguard party in Venezuela and that the most important thing for Communists in Venezuela to do is to establish that party! Don't you claim to be a Leninist? I suggest you go read "What is to be Done?"

[La Comédie Noire]

So if the party which is social-democratic does something right like say nationalize a key industry , you wont support it?What kind of mentality is this.

Like it would matter whether we supported it or not. History is moving in Venezuela and it's not from you or I, or in the direction we would hope.

Nationalizing industry doesn't lead to Communism. A lot of countries have nationalized industries in the past, did they lead to Communism? Nope.

Reform, that's all I see in Venezuela.

Chavez is progressive in the sense he is developing Venezuela into a full fledge capitalist nation, for Venezuela that's a good thing.

[el_chavista]

Chávez may be capricious. In 2005 he informed the labor unionists of about 3000 factories abandoned by their owners that may be taken by workers. Chirino didn´t take his word and the chance passed by. Instead Chirino called for not voting in favor of the reform on december. Chavez's response was to fire him and 2 more Trotskist(?) guys from public enterprises.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The allegedly "ultra-left" Chirino (and I REALLY don't like that idiot) is a modern MENSHEVIK, plain and simple.