[FONT=Arial]by Gerry Foley / January 2010[/FONT][FONT=Arial][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial] [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]At the special congress of the Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) in mid-November, accompanied by an international conclave of supposedly left parties, the president of [/FONT][FONT=Arial]Venezuela[/FONT][FONT=Arial] and the top leader of the party, Hugo Chavez, called for the formation of a Fifth International to unite left parties worldwide to fight international capitalism and struggle to replace it with socialism.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial] [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]Chavez’s declaration aroused interest among parties of Trotskyist origin and identification in particular because it recognized a historic place for the Fourth International. His argument that the only solution to the crisis of capitalism is its replacement by socialism, and that that required international unity of parties fighting for socialism, coincided with the historic positions of the Trotskyist movement.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial] [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]Chavez called for a meeting of left parties in April to form the international socialist organization he proposed. An article on the Aporrea web page, a service initiated by forces of Trotskyist origin that supports the Chavez regime, declared that the Venezuelan president was now the recognized leader of the world left.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial] [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]FranÁois[/FONT][FONT=Arial] Sabado, a member of the Executive Bureau of the Fourth International and an activist in the New Anticapitalist Party (NPA) in [/FONT][FONT=Arial]France[/FONT][FONT=Arial], wrote an article in the November edition of International Viewpoint magazine that welcomes Chavez’s Fifth International call. Sabado states that the Fourth International has already formulated, on many occasions, its programmatic proposals around which revolutionary forces could unite. These include “an anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist program of emergency demands, which starts from the demands and the social needs of the popular classes, proposes a new distribution of wealth, public and social appropriation of the key sectors of the economy, and leads on to the revolutionary transformation of society.”[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial] [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]Sabado[/FONT][FONT=Arial] said that Chavez’s call “creates the conditions for a new international discussion, indissociable from solidarity with the Bolivarian revolution.” [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial] [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]However, if Chavez meant what he said or understood what he was calling for, he chose an odd venue for his call. The [/FONT][FONT=Arial]Caracas[/FONT][FONT=Arial] gathering of alleged left parties included the Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI, the main party in the lower house of the Mexican Congress), which has never been a socialist party and is no longer even a populist one. It also included the ruling Workers Party of Brazil, which has cast aside whatever socialist program it ever had and administers a neoliberal regime hardly different from its right-wing predecessor in government. In fact, according to the Argentine Trotskyist journal Alternativa Socialista (Dec.17), a representative of the PRI at the gathering interrupted Chavez and called on him to join the association of Christian Democratic parties to which the PRI is allied.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial] [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]Alternativa[/FONT][FONT=Arial] Socialista[/FONT][FONT=Arial] wrote: “The context was not favorable. Most of the guests were more interested in making deals with the local ‘boliburguesia’ [businessmen who have profited from their relations with the Chavez government] or the very ‘red’ state bureaucracy than talking about internationals, much less hearing the names of Lenin, Trotsky, Rosa Luxemburg, Marx or Engels. ... The representatives of the PT [Workers Party] of [/FONT][FONT=Arial]Brazil[/FONT][FONT=Arial] declared that they preferred to stay in the framework of the [/FONT][FONT=Arial]Sao Paulo[/FONT][FONT=Arial] forum, a sort of regroupment of neoliberal Social Democrats. And the Latin American Communist Parties, with the exception of the Cuban one, which has not yet taken a position, defended their position of anti-imperialist united fronts, which have failed for decades. The CPs could not tolerate the recognition of the Fourth International….”[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial] [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]In the Dec. 4 issue of Socialismo o Barbarie, the magazine of the Nuevo MAS (New Movement Toward Socialism), another Argentine Trotskyist group, Claudio Tesla wrote: “You have to recognize that Chavez is a specialist in taking the content out of words, or directly turning fundamental concepts upside down. Thus, when he proclaimed the building of ‘Twenty-first Century Socialism,’ he immediately followed that by establishing that this peculiar ‘socialism’ was going to be built in collaboration with businessmen—that is, without expropriating the capitalists.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial] [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]“Then when the working class began to raise demands and fight through trade unions independent of the government, he talked about forming ‘workers councils.’ Of course, these peculiar ‘soviets’ were not going to be democratic organs of the masses (like those in the Russian Revolution) but organizations of Chavistas to put an end to the problems caused by trade unions, especially, in the public or nationalized sector. After that the announcement that ‘popular militias’ were going to be formed had nothing to do with organizing a Red Guard, as in 1917, or the militias of other revolutions, as in Spain in 1936. They would be part of the armed forces for maintaining order.”[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial] [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]Chavez’s recognition of the Fourth International was not so surprising or reassuring to Trotskyists who remember that a former minister of labor in his government was of Trotskyist origin, and claimed to be a Trotskyist, but had to be dumped from the government in response to protests from workers who were infuriated by his support of a company against them (an Argentine-owned company backed by the Peronist government Chavez regarded as an ally).[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial] [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]However contradictory, nonetheless, Chavez’s leftism has not been limited to words. There has been a slow process of radicalization of the regime and a series of nationalizations, which have grown over the past year. The most recent is the nationalization of some banks. But it was a symptomatic move in more ways than one. In the first place, it was long overdue. The Venezuelan banking sector is dominated by international trusts, although most of the deposits are government money deriving from the income of the nationalized oil industry.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial] [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]The[/FONT][FONT=Arial] Economist, the leading magazine of the British capitalist class, reported in its Dec. 10 issue: “‘Being rich is bad,’ Hugo Ch·vez is wont to remark. But in the decade in which he has been Venezuela’s president, some people with close ties to his regime have made fortunes. Now he seems to have lost patience with them. Over the past fortnight the government has shut down seven small banks and an insurance company and arrested several of their owners, accusing them of fraud and mismanagement. The president says this is part of a drive to root out corruption. Yet the scandal would seem to lead to the upper echelons of his government.”[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial] [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]Chavez’s move against some bankers (10 percent of the banking industry) touched off a panic in the sector, with bank shares falling precipitously. The rate of the national currency, the Bolivar, suffered a corresponding drop on the exchange market. Chavez moved quickly to reassure the bankers.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial] [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]The Bloomberg press service reported Dec. 4: “Chavez said yesterday his government’s investigation of banks is confined to a small group, not the entire sector, a day after threatening to seize financial institutions for failing to comply with regulations. The government took over four banks on Nov. 20. … ‘Chavez is saying I’m not going to nationalize the entire financial system, just the small fries,’ said Kathryn Rooney, an emerging-markets analyst at Bulltick Securities Corp. in [/FONT][FONT=Arial]Miami[/FONT][FONT=Arial].”[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial] [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]The Economist[/FONT][FONT=Arial] commented cynically that whatever the reason for Chavez’s move against some relatively small banks, Chavez “has seized on the issue to assume one of his favourite roles, as scourge of the rich. He may yet turn this scandal to his political advantage.”[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial] [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]After his threats to bankers, Chavez threatened the transnational car manufacturers that unless they produced “rustic” cars—that is, vehicles able to negotiate the country’s largely rough roads, and shared their technology with local companies, that he would nationalize them.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial] [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]In its Dec. 25 issue, Truth About Cars, a magazine of the [/FONT][FONT=Arial]U.S.[/FONT][FONT=Arial] automotive industry, commented: “Their options are either to ‘share their technology with local businesses’ (a half-expropriation) or get out (a full expropriation.) Chavez usually doesn’t do nationalizations in piecemeal fashion. He tends to nationalize whole industry sectors. The metals, cement, oil, coffee and electricity sectors are all being owned by the people of [/FONT][FONT=Arial]Venezuela[/FONT][FONT=Arial], or Hugo Chavez, depending how one looks at it.”[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial] [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]However, the magazine speculated that Chavez’s objective was to replace Japanese and American carmakers with Chinese capitalist companies, in line with his project of making [/FONT][FONT=Arial]China[/FONT][FONT=Arial] the major consumer of Venezuelan oil, replacing the [/FONT][FONT=Arial]United States[/FONT][FONT=Arial]. Truth About Cars noted that Chavez has declared that [/FONT][FONT=Arial]China[/FONT][FONT=Arial] is his main strategic ally in the world, but thought that his perspective was illusory, given [/FONT][FONT=Arial]China[/FONT][FONT=Arial]’s dependence on the American and Japanese market:[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial] [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]“The matters are being complicated by the [/FONT][FONT=Arial]US[/FONT][FONT=Arial] and Japan being major trading partners of [/FONT][FONT=Arial]China[/FONT][FONT=Arial], and by GM and [/FONT][FONT=Arial]Toyota[/FONT][FONT=Arial] having major joint ventures in [/FONT][FONT=Arial]China[/FONT][FONT=Arial] and buying lots of parts from Chinese manufacturers. China will gladly buy Venezuela’s oil and build them some ports to go with it. But they won’t put their booming auto business at risk for some 100,000 ‘rustic’ cars built in [/FONT][FONT=Arial]Venezuela[/FONT][FONT=Arial].”[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial] [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]Truth About Cars[/FONT][FONT=Arial] pointed out that in any case, the Venezuelan car workers were not likely to gain by having [/FONT][FONT=Arial]U.S.[/FONT][FONT=Arial] and Japanese bosses replaced by Chinese ones: “Should it really come to the Chinese taking over [/FONT][FONT=Arial]Venezuela[/FONT][FONT=Arial]’s auto plants, then the workers may be in for a rude surprise. Chinese factory managers are not necessarily known for their subtle style when it comes to labor relations.”[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial] [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]However, Chavez has not demonstrated an interest in defending workers’ rights. He has also made a special alliance with Lukashenko, the dictator of Byelorus, who crushed the Minsk subway workers strike and has fostered legislation that would abolish collective bargaining in principle. According to Lukashenko’s law, the only contacts would be between individual workers and the boss.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial] [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]It is also a contradiction for Chavez to say that he is for an international movement for socialism, when he makes special alliances with governments like Lukashenko’s or Amadinejad’s in Iran, which are violently reactionary, just because they are in conflict on one level or another with the United States.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial] [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]Of course, Chavez has justification for seeking tactical alliances with third-world capitalist governments that are trying to win some maneuvering room from [/FONT][FONT=Arial]U.S.[/FONT][FONT=Arial] imperialism. The support of Lula’s government was important to Chavez’s survival when the Venezuelan capitalists tried to oust him with a lockout of the oil industry, which they then controlled. Likewise, the very limited defense of Cuba’s right to self-determination by the PRI government in Mexico helped to stave off a massive U.S. assault on the Cuban revolution.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]But there has to be a clear separation between such tactical and diplomatic alliances and political alliances. Chavez can win no points with the Mexican rulers by appealing to them to join a world socialist movement. And he makes his appeal for a revolutionary socialist international appear ridiculous by appealing to parties like the Mexican PRI.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial] [/FONT]