Chavez's top-down approach to socialism

[spartan]

Will it fail?

If so then how will it fail?

For me he will either become corrupt or the people will want more and recognise that he is the obstacle that is preventing them from attaining what they want and they will revolt thus weakining the country enough to allow the US to come in and "restore democracy" (i.e. secure Venezuelan oil fields).

"Everything for the people, nothing by the people."

I feel that this quote by the "Enlightened Despot" Joseph II Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire describes perfectly what is happening in Venezuela right now.

[spice756]

spartan will have thread on Venezuela just add it there.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-venezuella-poor-t73327/index.html



enough to allow the US to come in and "restore democracy" (i.e. secure Venezuelan oil fields).



No this is bad :( if the US comes in you will see big US companies running the oil and the money going to US capitalists than the people.

[JimmyJazz]

Maybe some examples or a link of why you think so, spartan. I think some of what Chavez does empowers people in ways that they would be reluctant to give up, regardless of his personal political fate. For instance, he has greatly encouraged the creation of workers' cooperatives (http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2006/0706bowmanstone.html).

The idea of purely bottom-up socialism is nice, but also a pipe dream. Spontaneous mass revolution (which seems to be all some people would accept) doesn't happen, at least not undisastrously.

[BIG BROTHER]

Well I think there are various things that could happen, but one thing I know for certain is that Venezuela will end up as a neo-liberal country once again or it will definetly break with capitalism.

Chavez as he is trying to deliver his version of socialism from the top to the bottom, is trying to maintain both the proletariat and the national bourgoeisie happy. We know that both social classes are irreconcialable so if the workers conciosness ever rises and they seek to completely abolish capitalism Chavez will either prevent them from doing so and ultimately be overthrowed too, or he'll just have to break tyes with the national bourgeoise.

So as I see it it will fail but it could either result in the restoration of capitalism or actual socialism. We'll just have to see who Chavez decides to side with.

[Yehuda Stern]

So as I see it it will fail but it could either result in the restoration of capitalism or actual socialism. We'll just have to see who Chavez decides to side with.

Is this it then? No workers revolution, no independent action? It all hangs on what Chavez decides to do? I think that's bullshit, but if it's true, we're all f-ed.

[Oneironaut]

What fails to make any sense to me is how Chavez claims to be a socialist but will not nationalize some worker-operated factories. If he is going to be more than a reformist, this is the key step he must take. Although I was reading the other day about how he has set up some social production centers... http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/3781

this to me if very hopeful, he is just taking so goddamn long to get shit rolling. he is waiting around too much. I do find him to be a very interesting man while I am still skeptical of his policies. i would really love to travel there and see the country myself before I can make a strong statement on him. chavez and morales both have inspired much hope in latin americans, this much is true.

[Chom]

The primary task of every "leader" is to eliminate himself, and Chávez is making great steps towards it. ¡Viva Venezuela Socialista!

[spice756]

Is this it then? No workers revolution, no independent action? It all hangs on what Chavez decides to do? I think that's bullshit, but if it's true, we're all f-ed.

I thought he was trying to set up workers group and take power over the industries.

All he has nationalize are the oil and media.Many still do not have access to education and healthcare.

I believe poverty is still a problem and has not improved.

[redarmyfaction38]

I thought he was trying to set up workers group and take power over the industries.

All he has nationalize are the oil and media.Many still do not have access to education and healthcare.

I believe poverty is still a problem and has not improved. iwant to believe chavez has good intentions, but, as long as he tries to reconcile the interests of the working class and the national bourgeouisie he is doomed to failure.
there is no "bonapartist"/"peronist" solution to todays political and economic situation.
it's all or nothing.
his failure to take the revolution forward can only result in the eventual defeat of his govt.
peasants and workers are all ready asking "where has the oil money gone"? when they are forced to travel to find thye health care they were promised.

[el_chavista]

Venezuela is a backward country. Even keynessian economist Stiglits said it is better for a State to nationalize enterprises than starting them from scratch.

On November 23 there will be elections for mayors and governors. We will see how many people still support "Chávez's path to socialism".

[KurtFF8]

I think that a lot of leftists undervalue "top down" socialist approaches like Chavez's. I say this because we often view the state as inherently opposed to the interests of the working class and being run by the bourgeoisie, and this is quite a major hurdle for any revolutionary/socialist movement. But if the state is captured by socialists, or at least heavily pressured by it, with some direct and indirect control: the movement has in a sense "more breathing room".

Chavez has done some great things for the working class of Venezuela, but of course only time will tell how socialism progresses in Venezuela and sadly there seems to be a lot of resistance in places like Bolivia.

[BIG BROTHER]

Is this it then? No workers revolution, no independent action? It all hangs on what Chavez decides to do? I think that's bullshit, but if it's true, we're all f-ed.

You misinterpreted my words. I said that in Venezuela either a real workers revolution will be implemented, or will see the return of capitalism and perhaps even some sort of fascism. Chavez will eventually have to pick a side.

[KurtFF8]

You misinterpreted my words. I said that in Venezuela either a real workers revolution will be implemented, or will see the return of capitalism and perhaps even some sort of fascism. Chavez will eventually have to pick a side.

Yes if there is some sort of civil war perhaps. But if there is, I would imagine one faction of that war would be the working class and peasants. And I doubt that Chavez would turn on them if things got that serious.

I don't see why we can't support many of the things he's doing. It's much better to have a Marxist in power that aids the working class in its struggle than to have a state for the capitalist class.

If he lost an election, or was slowly taken out of power by the political establishment and replaced with a pro-capitalist class president. We would criticize every action that new president made and cite them as examples of capitalist exploitation and oppression. But when we have a president of a country who does aim to replace capitalism, we can't spend most of our time dismissing them.

I'm not saying we shouldn't be critical of Chavez, we should be highly critical, he's still part of the apparatus that is keeping Venezuela from being fully socialist right now, but considering his actual role in Venezuela, I think we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss him.

[BIG BROTHER]

I never said I don't support him. I support every progressive measure he has done, and I'm against any reactionary or imperialist action taken against his government. Nevertheless we have to remember that the working class is the ones we have to back up.

[Coggeh]

Yes if there is some sort of civil war perhaps. But if there is, I would imagine one faction of that war would be the working class and peasants. And I doubt that Chavez would turn on them if things got that serious.

I don't see why we can't support many of the things he's doing. It's much better to have a Marxist in power that aids the working class in its struggle than to have a state for the capitalist class.

If he lost an election, or was slowly taken out of power by the political establishment and replaced with a pro-capitalist class president. We would criticize every action that new president made and cite them as examples of capitalist exploitation and oppression. But when we have a president of a country who does aim to replace capitalism, we can't spend most of our time dismissing them.

I'm not saying we shouldn't be critical of Chavez, we should be highly critical, he's still part of the apparatus that is keeping Venezuela from being fully socialist right now, but considering his actual role in Venezuela, I think we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss him.
The working class of venezuala cannot put their faith in Chavez to magically deliver them the revolution as days go by Chavez's rhetoric is becoming more and more transparent.Calling him a marxist is something very very questionable also .

[BIG BROTHER]

Of course, that's why the working class in the only one fully capable of bringing a revolution, and lead to communism. Never the less, that doesn't mean we should just ignore Chavez.

[KurtFF8]

The working class of venezuala cannot put their faith in Chavez to magically deliver them the revolution as days go by Chavez's rhetoric is becoming more and more transparent.Calling him a marxist is something very very questionable also .

I'm not saying that they should. My argument was only that having someone who may at least be trying to help the working class and be representing the working class and not the ruling class is helpful to the working class.

One of the big hurdles that the working class faces in every capitalist country is the state apparatus. And when that state apparatus is used against the ruling class, or at least used in a way that doesn't hurt the working class nearly as much: The working class has a better opportunity to build a revolutionary movement.

By encouraging worker ownership and trying to actually help advance it, there is certainly some value in what Chavez is doing. But the problem that we all run into is that he is still the head of a pre-revolutionary government. He is not a socialist leading after a socialist revolution that has placed the means of production in the hands of workers. So it's in a way an odd place that Venezeula is in, and to dismiss Chavez and his importance could be detremental to the working class of Venezeula in my opinion.

Again (and i've said this a few times on revleft). We shouldn't unconditionally support him, as a matter of fact we should be highly critical when he takes actions that are harmful to a socialist movement. But on the other hand, we can't just dismiss him.

[RedHal]

I thought he was trying to set up workers group and take power over the industries.

All he has nationalize are the oil and media.Many still do not have access to education and healthcare.

I believe poverty is still a problem and has not improved.

did I miss something? When did Chavez nationalize the media? The majority of the mass media in Venezuela are still owned by the corporate elites, which are fiercely anti Chavez. I don't think I could've missed a development as big as this, the western media would've had a field day with that "dictator" Chavez if he nationalized the media. Unless of course you believe the non-renewal of that criminal RCTV station was nationalizing.

[Yehuda Stern]

Again (and i've said this a few times on revleft). We shouldn't unconditionally support him, as a matter of fact we should be highly critical when he takes actions that are harmful to a socialist movement. But on the other hand, we can't just dismiss him.

Marxists don't dismiss any major political movement, much less one in which many left wing people, including workers, entertain many illusions. But that's not really the subject - the subject is the way in which we should treat Chavez. The only revolutionary position would be to place demands on the Chavez government explicitly to expose it in the eyes of the working class - in no way to built up trust in him or in his populist bourgeois party. Morales' situation in Bolivia already shows that that sort of attitude will bring us back to the Allende-Pinochet days.

[La Comédie Noire]

He's left Bourgeoise or the modern equivalent of a radical republican. History has shown he will only go so far before finding the worker's demands too extreme and falling back.

Even his support of seemingly revolutionary organs such as unions and cooperatives are state run affairs.

He's granting the workers' of Venezuela reforms



The labor code sets the maximum workweek at 44 hours. Labor laws include provisions for an eight-hour day and a paid vacation of at least 15 workdays a year. In 2002 the monthly minimum wage was $220 in the private sector for urban workers and $198 for rural workers. Minimum wage workers in the private sector received mandatory food and transport bonuses. Until the age of 16, minors may work only with restrictions as to hours and working conditions. The labor ministry effectively enforces these provisions in the formal economic sector but more than one million children were believed to be working in the informal economy in 2002.



but let's not kid ourselves, revolution isn't about being allowed things.