Venezuelan Workers March Again to Demand Socialism at the Workplace.

[Le Socialiste]

Mérida, March 31st 2011 (Venezuelanalysis.com) – Thousands of Venezuelan workers took to the streets of Caracas on Thursday to demand immediate improvements in workplace democracy and to insist on the final passage of a radical new labor law that has been held up in the National Assembly since 2003. According to organizers from Venezuela’s National Workers’ Union (UNETE), the march was intended to reiterate the national union’s “critical support” for the government of Hugo Chávez and to push for greater consolidation of Chávez’s proposed “21st century socialism” on job sites nationwide.
“We want to deepen real worker control, advance in the efficiency and efficacy of the [publicly-owned] companies, and we want and end to impunity. All of these demands are an obvious part of the revolutionary project,” said UNETE National Coordinator Marcela Máspero.
Máspero spoke to UNETE’s insistence on the democratization unions, the planning of production and workplans by workers themselves, and an end to violence and repression against outspoken “revolutionary” workers.
“The working class is who has been called upon to construct socialism,” said Rosa Grimau, spokesperson for the Promotion Committee of the Socialist Workers’ Council within the National Assembly. “That’s why we ourselves must consolidate a force that makes proposals in line with elevating the quality of working conditions throughout the country,” she said.
Socialist Workers’ Councils are one of over 10,000 proposals that have been made in ongoing discussions for a new Organic Labor Law, under discussion since 2002.
Though Thursday’s march resembled a similar UNETE action organized on 9 November 2010, it differed from last year’s demonstration in that it included a brief standoff between demonstrators and police.
According to an article published in Aporrea.org, the organizer’s plans to march directly to the Venezuelan National Assembly were stalled for over an hour by a multi-layered ring of police forces, including officers from municipal and national forces as well as members of the Bolivarian National Guard.
After negotiating with police officials, marchers were allowed to continue on their scheduled route and submit their demands in writing to United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) deputy and Vice President of the National Assembly (AN) Aristóbulo Istúriz.
Istúriz committed himself to delivering the marchers’ demands directly to AN President Fernando Soto Rojas, though he insisted the next steps for advancing the proposed Organic Labor Law must be taken by the AN’s Permanent Commission for Social Development.
Last Friday, over 15,000 workers marched in the southern state of Bolívar with similar demands – calling for more socialism, denouncing imperialism’s assault on national sovereignties, and committing themselves to the consolidation of socialist unions in all of the primary industries (steel, iron, aluminum, and coal) present in the region.

The people are demanding the further democratization of their industries...a workplace organized, operated, and democratically coordianted by the workers themselves. They are asking for the furthering of an increasingly revolutionary socialism; why the need for police and national guard? Are the people becoming more revolutionized than the government might like? It just strikes me as odd that the state felt it necessary that a police/guard presence be present at a demonstration demanding socialism...

http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/6106

[Rss]

It just strikes me as odd that the state felt it necessary that a police/guard presence be present at a demonstration demanding socialism...

http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/6106

Kinda shows Hugo's true colors, doesn't it? Venezuelans need to kick him down and bring the progress forward themselves.

[Kiev Communard]

It just strikes me as odd that the state felt it necessary that a police/guard presence be present at a demonstration demanding socialism.

It is not at all odd. Any State is by definition an association of ruling class against the subordinate ones. Chavez does not renounce capitalism, he dismisses neoliberal form of capitalism, while basically promoting neo-Keynesian one.

[Nolan]

I like how some people look at Venezuela and see one man pulling the strings of every single police action.

[Thirsty Crow]

I like how some people look at Venezuela and see one man pulling the strings of every single police action.

Yeah, if we were to be entirely sceptical, there'd be at least two burning questions to ask:

1) why the police and the National Guard?

2) why hasn't the legislation in question been passed yet, or at least clearly formulated and brought up as a bill (I'm not sure if Venezuela distinguishes between "bills" and "acts" )?

As far as the first question is concerned, if we were naive, we could conclude that public order (massive demos may result in all kinds of shit) was the primary factor behind the decision on behalf of the official authorities.
If we were naive.

The second question is more complex and problematic. Maybe we could push the discussion in this direction.

[Tim Finnegan]

I like how some people look at Venezuela and see one man pulling the strings of every single police action.

You'd think that more leftists would be able to see past the "brown + anti-American = dictator" logic peddled by the Western media, wouldn't you?

[El Chuncho]

You'd think that more leftists would be able to see past the "brown + anti-American = dictator" logic peddled by the Western media, wouldn't you?

You would, wouldn't you? But the Western media is too powerful and entrenched in the mindset of even some leftist westerners. Chavez does a lot of good for his people, even if he may not be perfect, and has an almost spotless record. He is anti-American due to the simple reason that not only is it the major playing in Latin America, occupy many countries and supporting fascist dictators, but it also wages wars against any country it feels has slighted it. Anti-Americanism is not villainy, indeed.

[b man]

This is good stuff! People are marching in the streets in Venezuela and the first thing you people think to do is rush to Chavez's defense.

[Tim Finnegan]

This is good stuff! People are marching in the streets in Venezuela and the first thing you people think to do is rush to Chavez's defense.

Actually, the first thing that happened was people rushing to criticise Chavez. What we did was speculate as to the validity of the particular criticisms, specifically, the idea that Chavez is personally responsible for the deployment of the Caracas Metropolitan Police.

Also, note that "the march was intended to reiterate the national union’s “critical support” for the government of Hugo Chávez and to push for greater consolidation of Chávez’s proposed “21st century socialism” on job sites nationwide." This wasn't intended in opposition to Chavez, but, rather to prod him into further action; is a "defence", as you seem to use the term, actually necessary?

[Le Socialiste]

While I tend to be critical of Chavez's politics, the article doesn't say whether or not he ordered/authorized the deployment of security forces. Either way, I find it deeply unsettling that a state/government that claims to adhere to the principles of socialism would find it necessary to place "security" around a march for the furtherment of a socialistic society.

[Tim Finnegan]

While I tend to be critical of Chavez's politics, the article doesn't say whether or not he ordered/authorized the deployment of security forces. Either way, I find it deeply unsettling that a state/government that claims to adhere to the principles of socialism would find it necessary to place "security" around a march for the furtherment of a socialistic society.

Then you probably shouldn't conflate the state and the administration. It'll save you a lot of grief.

[b man]

Actually, the first thing that happened was people rushing to criticise Chavez.

By pointing out that there was a demonstration?

is a "defence", as you seem to use the term, actually necessary?

What does this mean?

[dernier combat]

You'd think that more leftists would be able to see past the "brown + anti-American = dictator" logic peddled by the Western media, wouldn't you?

So are you actually going to cite proof of your claims that this is the logic of many so-called "leftists"?

[Tim Finnegan]

By pointing out that there was a demonstration?

By suggesting Chavez had some personal role in the deployment of the Caracas Metropolitan Police, which I'm not entirely sure is a responsibility allotted to the Venezuelan president.

What does this mean?

It means that those of us who sympathise with Chavez have no reason to "rush to his defence", because he is not under attack. This is an example of his own popular base prodding him into further action: it is an expression of critical support.

So are you actually going to cite proof of your claims that this is the logic of many so-called "leftists"?

I didn't realise that I was supposed to offer citations for sardonic remarks.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I LOL at those who make this march of Venezuelan workers look like it's showing opposition to Chavez and the PSUV. Given that it's furthest from the truth. Fact of the matter is that these are critical supporters of Chavez and the PSUV. They believe what he represents and wants to implement his ideal of "socialism in the 21st century". Those claiming that Chavez is a neo-liberal and doesn't denounce capitalism, these are the idiots who probably spend very little time paying attention to the events of Venezuela, the policies that have passed through and are going to pass through, and then not to mention the large opposition that stand, not just in the streets, but also in the govt. as well. No matter. Idealists will be idealists. It's easy to denounce someone as not being a revolutionary from the computer. Though, if anyone's a revolutionary between those denouncing Chavez from RevLeft and Chavez himself, Chavez clearly takes home the cake.

[BIG BROTHER]

I don't see anything wrong with this March at all. It is necesary that the working class organizes independently to support and fight for their interests, which they are doing by demanding workers control over industry.

Also the article clearly shows that they are "critical supporters" of Chavez and rather than marching in opposition to him, they are just trying to influence the political process.

[Tim Finnegan]

I don't see anything wrong with this March at all. It is necesary that the working class organizes independently to support and fight for their interests, which they are doing by demanding workers control over industry.

Indeed. I would even go so far as to suggest that this sort of thing is a product of the movement of which Chavez is part: it reflects the increasing re-orientation of Venezuelan politics away from the bourgeoisie and towards the working class, and locates the driving force of this re-orientation within the working class itself. Where else in the world could the people march through the streets asking, in all sincerity, the bourgeois state to do away with itself? That's a sight that has not been seen in the first world for almost a century, and in many parts of it, not at all. Even if it suggests that Chavez is being overly timid, it shows that the movement which produced him- and I think Chavez, along with perhaps Morales, is unique in that he is a product of a popular movement, and not the leader of a populist movement- is doing something very right indeed.

Whether or not you actually believe that Chavez is capable of doing anything approaching this, whether or not you consider these requests simplistic and utopian, and whether or not you consider that movement capable of developing a revolutionary nature or bound to mere reformism, that's not something that can be dismissed.

[pranabjyoti]

To Chavez critics, please name someone better than him to replace him in near future. OTHERWISE, STOP PLAYING THE GAME.

[dernier combat]

I didn't realise that I was supposed to offer citations for sardonic remarks.

Well they seem like pretty serious allegations in the context of "leftists".

[dernier combat]

To Chavez critics, please name someone better than him to replace him in near future. OTHERWISE, STOP PLAYING THE GAME.

Generally, communist critics of Chavez don't name any individual that they think will be a better replacement, because they believe that a militant, independent working class itself could do a better job, as it is the real force of social change, as in all capitalist societies. I think any rational communist would agree with this principle. If you think that the mobilisation of the working class independent of Chavez is not a possibility (as this is a predictable response from many Chavistas), then you might as well give up on the prospect of revolution - anywhere.