Chavez Calls for a Fifth International

  1. redphilly
    redphilly
    I'd be very interested in comrades' take on this and the debate over a new international.

    http://www.socialistaction.org/foley147.htm

    [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]
  2. blake 3:17
    blake 3:17
    There's a discussion on this here tonight I'll be missing, but will hear about shortly. The point that Chavez recognizes the FI is not unimportant. In the politics forum there was a fairly lengthy discussion of the meeting in Caracas.

    The thread is here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/chavez-cal...+international

    The proposal seems closer to what one poster called an anti-imperialist NATO. I'd think of something similar or something like the Non-Aligned Movement. Good on Foley for recognizing the PRI as especially problematic.

    The Venezuelan revolution does need allies. I've worked pretty closely with some Chavistas here, and we've been able to agree to disagree on some Venezuela's friends internationally, particularly Iran.

    I'm not sure about what the Argentinian comrade has to say. Chavez has embraced a strategic gradualism that I don't think is as stupid (or as smart) as on the Left think. Unlike Allende, Chavez does understand the military and the threat of an internal fascist movement and its imperial friends.

    Foley's criticisms of Chavez's reluctance to nationalize doesn't seem sound to me. He's been quite astute at picking firms and industries to nationalize. To simply nationalize everything all at once seems suicidal.

    The stuff on Chinese automotive production is... interesting? I'm totally perplexed by China. Does the current USFI have a full blown analysis of China? Most of the Left here (from pink to black) is pretty strongly anti-China while the Sparts and their off shoots defend it as a deformed workers state. Others of us are agnostic at present.



    Back to the original point: A new International based on the meeting in Caracas isn't something that we should embrace.
  3. Crux
    Crux
    While I am suprised about the silence from the CWI sections, as I said in the thread, it's dubious this new international would actually function as an international. If I am not misinformed the Communist Party of China was also present.
  4. redphilly
    redphilly
    The CWI has an article on Venezuela up on socialistworld.net I think it's a pretty good piece and have referred to it in our (Socialist Action/USFI) pre-world congress discussions on this question.

    http://socialistworld.net/z/bin/kw.cgi/show?id=3841
  5. redphilly
    redphilly
    I think Gerry's article in the most recent Socialist Action begins what is, for us, a necessary discussion about the nature of a revolutionary international and our posture toward both the Bolivarian "revolution" and Chavez.

    I'll address the question of a new international last. First, to get at the question of Chavez and the situation in Venezuela.

    As revolutionaries we, of course, support the reforms that Chavez has enacted. The misiones; which extended education and health care to millions and the land reform which distributed more than 2 million hectares (1 hectare equals 2.47 acres) These reforms, financed by income from Venezuela's oil industry, have taught more than one million people to read, given millions access to doctors and placed more than 3 million in primary and secondary schools.

    However, these reforms and Chavez's rhetoric about "socialism of the 21st century" do not translate into the overthrow of capitalism. Capitalist property relations still exist in Venezuela. The bourgeoisie have not been expropriated. Chavez has used a lot of socialist rhetoric but has temporized at times and made compromises with the national ruling class. He's also made statements about arming the working class and making socialist revolution. It's very clear that he's a nationalist in the sense of opposing imperialist exploitation of Venezuela, but whether he's a consistent socialist is a claim we can, and should, dispute. The emergence of the "boli-bourgeoisie" is something we should pay particular attention to. This layer of Venezuelan bourgeois figures has allied itself with Chavez and enriched itself at the expense of the Venezuelan workers and farmers.

    I would characterize Chavez as being a radical populist and not a consistent socialist. He puts on his socialist identity like some of us would put on a winter coat. It's a useful garment to wear when trying to build opposition to imperialist moves against his regime, but the fit is not so good.

    That said, the threat of imperialist attacks, and of internal counter revolution financed and promoted by the US, remains and we would be obliged to defend Venezuela against imperialist attack. We are not, however, obligated to cheerlead for Chavez as so many left forces, including some Trotskyists, seem compelled to do. The longer the full expropriation of the bourgeoisie is delayed the more time is bought for the reaction to organize itself. Making a revolution "halfway" is the road to disaster.
    The Bolivarian revolution undermined by its own contradictions

    The failure to expropriate the bourgeoisie is leading to the undermining of the critical reforms that build popular support for the regime. Widespread bureaucratic corruption is causing dissatisfaction amongst the workers who have previously supported Chavez and the government or its supporters have resorted to repressive tactics against workers organizations and strikes.

    the state oil company PDVSA increased its debt in 2008 by 146% and owes $12 billion to contractors. Consequently the misiones, which are financed by revenues form the PDVSA are facing budget cuts of 58% in 2008 in comparison to 2007.
    health clinics have been forced to close either part time of completely. The main hospital in Caracas, El Agondonal, is in ill repair and operates at 30% capacity. Rates of infection have skyrocketed
    Bureaucratic inefficiency frustrates the delivery of health, education and affordable food. The state owned super market chain, Mercal, has raised prices on basic food items and shelves are often empty. Inflation is the highest in Latin America at 30%. Rice up 29%, milk 68% pasta 78%.
    Food production suffers. For example, meat production was 17.4 kilos per person per month in 1999. Now the rate is 7.8 per person per month. Venezuela imports more than 50% of its meat consumption.
    The failure to expropriate the bourgeoisie, the fact that the Chavistas have avoided building real mass organizations to challenge the rule of the bosses, the fact that they have not nationalized the commanding heights of industry and instituted a democratic workers control, the bureaucratic corruption and inequality -- all are factors leading to apathy and
    demobilization of the base of the revolution. The Chavistas are under the false impression that the working masses can be led from above without their active participation in the process.

    There are other troubling developments in the last year of so -- the increased use of state repression against workers who are on strike or organizing against cuts and in defense of their rights. There were more than 400 strikes covering all industrial sectors in the period 2008--2009. Strikes have been banned, union elections interfered with by the state and the rhetoric of the government has been couched in terms of "defending socialism" against the workers. Workers leaders at Toyota were assassinated.

    The PSUV is an instrument of the state against the workers. It's a multi-class formation where workers self-organization within the party is discouraged. In an alarming turn of events, the PSUV sent 100 party leaders to China for "ideological" training. The PSUV has also organized local "socialist patrols" which act as vigilante goon squads against workers organizations.

    New international or cover for Chavez's foreign policy?

    I'm not enthusiastic about the prospects for a new "Fifth International" to emerge under Chavez. It seems to me this project is more of a cover for his increasingly putrid foreign policy (support for the Iranian and other anti-worker regimes) and less about building a real alternative for the oppressed and exploited.

    On the other hand, I think a more nuanced approach may be in order. Tactically, I would not want us to oppose this new international full stop, but to raise certain questions about the class forces and make a clear statement of what a revolutionary international would look like.

    An international with clear revolutionary, anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist politics. One that advocates for the self-organization and self emancipation of the oppressed and exploited. An international that does not serve the foreign policy interests of any particular state or regime. An international that supports the independence of the working class and its organizations from the bourgeoisie. Chavez has started a discussion and we should not abstain from it. Neither should we cheer lead or water down our politics to do so as some of our opponents have done.
  6. blake 3:17
    blake 3:17
    The bulk of the message above is Gerry Foley writing?
  7. redphilly
    redphilly
    The first post is Gerry's article from the January SA. The post put up most recently by me is something I threw together.