An exchange on Hugo Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution relative to the concept of participatory democracy and the role of economic and political empowerment of the poor. Although not anarchist, the Bolivarian government of Venezuela is taking minute but significant steps in the right direction. Ultimately of course ALL STATES should be dissolved, inclusive ''Bolivarian'' ones... but first it is necessary to arrive at the historical juncture that would permit that happy moment without danger of reversion to political and ecónomic despotism ...
The original polemic on Chavez and Bolivarianism was posted here:http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/860/venezuela.html
This exchange was originally posted at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/redsquare2/ AND http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Working_Class_News/
***
The government of the Bolivarian revolution aims to create theconditions that will allow for the emergence of socialism.
>>''Chávez's principal concern upon coming to power was to "solve the problem" of the country's faltering oil profits, the lifeblood of the Venezuelan bourgeoisie. He moved immediately to discipline the oil workers union and to otherwise increase the efficiency of the state- owned oil industry, while pressing the OPEC oil cartel to jack up prices...''
This is not true. The principal concern of the Bolivarian government upon taking power after the 1998 elections was Constitutional reform aimed at creating the political and institutional conditions that would allow for democratic progress in the social and economic sphere.
The Bolivarian government did not take full control of PDVSA until after the 2003 oil lockout. The-so called ''oil workers union'' was actually a subset of the old CTV labor federation which is linked to the US funded opposition. The CTV recieves funding from the AFL-CIO ''free labor institute'' project - an instrument of the US capitalist elite that for decades has acted to undermine anti-capitalist labor organising efforts in Latin America.
The members of OPEC have a right to recieve a fair market price for their oil. The Bolivarian government uses funds from oil revenues to fund expansion of social services: housing, food, healthcare and infrastructure modernisation.The aim of the Bolivarian Revolution is to end poverty by empowering the poor.
>>''As oil prices climbed, Chávez did siphon off some of the enormous profits to finance a series of social measures: tripling the budget for education, setting up free health clinics and free food distribution programs for the poor, etc. But the aim of such measures is not to effect, but rather to deflect, a social revolution—by binding the dispossessed masses more firmly to the Venezuelan state.''
These measures are actually the incipient stages of the social revolution appropriate to the Venezuelan context. It is not just mere provision of services from the State to the poor - in the process of being economically empowered by recieving a share of the wealth derived from oil revenues; the poor are encouraged to organise themselves. Take the example of the Misiones like ''Barrio Adentro'' where clinics and community kitchens are set up in poor neighborhoods and residents participate in the upkeep, management and project development process. This element of participation is what differentiates the Bolivarian road from others. The poor are not idle expectators; they are active participants in the process. The same is true of peasants involved in land reform and workers involved in the creation of cooperatives in recuperated factories.
The Venezuelan State of 2005 is the one established by the 1999 Bolivarian Constitution. Its institutions are by far the most democratic in the Americas - Indigenous people have direct representation as such in the National Assembly for example. The Venezuelan state is corporative in composition and participatory in its dynamic. It is not a ''representative democracy'' in the Burgeoise sense - it is rather a participatory democracy. The Venezuelan state belongs to the people - not to an elite of oligarchs as was the case before. In this context, ''binding the dispossessed masses more firmly to the Venezuelan state'' is in fact advancing the social revolution. This is socialism in the 21st Century.
***
Subject: Re: Venezuelan vote: Washington paves road to intervention
>>''And here it was I thought that the masses stayed awaybecause they thought their vote would be "meaningless''
I think that it is important, first of all, to point out that theturnout in the Venezuelan legislative election was higher than theturnout for the last European Parliament elections and the averageU.S. mid-term. The reason there was low turnout in Venezuela wasthat people felt there was not going to be any sort of meaningfulcontest because the opposition opted out. In truth; the Bolivarianparties should have done a better job of movilising people to voteregardless - perhaps portray the vote as a repudiation of theopposition boycott.
The ''Sumate'' opposition think-thank recieved millions of dollars from the U.S. government to do ''democracy promotion'' - actually voter supression. It was an orchestrated media campaign to delegitimise the political system established by the Constitution of 1999.
***
The two-thirds margin would provide the government's supporters with the power to amend the constitution, including the repeal of a statute that would deny Chavez the ability to run for a third term.
>>''It would be a complete mistake -- and demonstrate the weakness of the Revolution -- to alter the Constitution merely to accomodate a leader. Any lider. If Venezuela can't come up with an acceptable bolivarian candidate to succeed Chavez by the time his constitutional term-limit is reached,then the Revolution will have been in trouble for a long time...''
We agree here. I think the idea that the Bolivarian parties were aiming to amend the Constitution in this manner is an invention of the opposition linked media. The insinuation is ''would provide''. This is sophisticated propaganda. Chavez has stated already in response that he will not probably run again. The likely candidate would be Jesse Chacon - the former Information Minister, now Minister of the Interior.
>>''They should be concentrating all their constitutional thinking on expropriating the oligarchs and advancing the Revolution...''
The process of land reform and the process of handing over to workersidle factories and industrial facilities is well under way.
-Chavista.
> - -- grok.
>>''Chávez's principal concern upon coming to power was to "solve the problem" of the country's faltering oil profits, the lifeblood of the Venezuelan bourgeoisie. He moved immediately to discipline the oil workers union and to otherwise increase the efficiency of the state- owned oil industry, while pressing the OPEC oil cartel to jack up prices...''
This is not true. The principal concern of the Bolivarian government upon taking power after the 1998 elections was Constitutional reform aimed at creating the political and institutional conditions that would allow for democratic progress in the social and economic sphere.
The Bolivarian government did not take full control of PDVSA until after the 2003 oil lockout. The-so called ''oil workers union'' was actually a subset of the old CTV labor federation which is linked to the US funded opposition. The CTV recieves funding from the AFL-CIO ''free labor institute'' project - an instrument of the US capitalist elite that for decades has acted to undermine anti-capitalist labor organising efforts in Latin America.
The members of OPEC have a right to recieve a fair market price for their oil. The Bolivarian government uses funds from oil revenues to fund expansion of social services: housing, food, healthcare and infrastructure modernisation.The aim of the Bolivarian Revolution is to end poverty by empowering the poor.
>>''As oil prices climbed, Chávez did siphon off some of the enormous profits to finance a series of social measures: tripling the budget for education, setting up free health clinics and free food distribution programs for the poor, etc. But the aim of such measures is not to effect, but rather to deflect, a social revolution—by binding the dispossessed masses more firmly to the Venezuelan state.''
These measures are actually the incipient stages of the social revolution appropriate to the Venezuelan context. It is not just mere provision of services from the State to the poor - in the process of being economically empowered by recieving a share of the wealth derived from oil revenues; the poor are encouraged to organise themselves. Take the example of the Misiones like ''Barrio Adentro'' where clinics and community kitchens are set up in poor neighborhoods and residents participate in the upkeep, management and project development process. This element of participation is what differentiates the Bolivarian road from others. The poor are not idle expectators; they are active participants in the process. The same is true of peasants involved in land reform and workers involved in the creation of cooperatives in recuperated factories.
The Venezuelan State of 2005 is the one established by the 1999 Bolivarian Constitution. Its institutions are by far the most democratic in the Americas - Indigenous people have direct representation as such in the National Assembly for example. The Venezuelan state is corporative in composition and participatory in its dynamic. It is not a ''representative democracy'' in the Burgeoise sense - it is rather a participatory democracy. The Venezuelan state belongs to the people - not to an elite of oligarchs as was the case before. In this context, ''binding the dispossessed masses more firmly to the Venezuelan state'' is in fact advancing the social revolution. This is socialism in the 21st Century.
***
Subject: Re: Venezuelan vote: Washington paves road to intervention
>>''And here it was I thought that the masses stayed awaybecause they thought their vote would be "meaningless''
I think that it is important, first of all, to point out that theturnout in the Venezuelan legislative election was higher than theturnout for the last European Parliament elections and the averageU.S. mid-term. The reason there was low turnout in Venezuela wasthat people felt there was not going to be any sort of meaningfulcontest because the opposition opted out. In truth; the Bolivarianparties should have done a better job of movilising people to voteregardless - perhaps portray the vote as a repudiation of theopposition boycott.
The ''Sumate'' opposition think-thank recieved millions of dollars from the U.S. government to do ''democracy promotion'' - actually voter supression. It was an orchestrated media campaign to delegitimise the political system established by the Constitution of 1999.
***
The two-thirds margin would provide the government's supporters with the power to amend the constitution, including the repeal of a statute that would deny Chavez the ability to run for a third term.
>>''It would be a complete mistake -- and demonstrate the weakness of the Revolution -- to alter the Constitution merely to accomodate a leader. Any lider. If Venezuela can't come up with an acceptable bolivarian candidate to succeed Chavez by the time his constitutional term-limit is reached,then the Revolution will have been in trouble for a long time...''
We agree here. I think the idea that the Bolivarian parties were aiming to amend the Constitution in this manner is an invention of the opposition linked media. The insinuation is ''would provide''. This is sophisticated propaganda. Chavez has stated already in response that he will not probably run again. The likely candidate would be Jesse Chacon - the former Information Minister, now Minister of the Interior.
>>''They should be concentrating all their constitutional thinking on expropriating the oligarchs and advancing the Revolution...''
The process of land reform and the process of handing over to workersidle factories and industrial facilities is well under way.
-Chavista.
> - -- grok.
2 comments:
A Libertarian Socialist reply to this contribution was posted on Indymedia by Venezuelan journalist Miguel Amanda:
Austin Texas, U.S.A. Indymedia >>>
http://austin.indymedia.org/newswire/display/22912/index.php
***
‘’Hugo Chavez, National Corporatism and The Global Left’’
by Miguel Amanda January 22, 2006
The incurable flaw of the Left seems to be its weakness for leadership cults. Apparently the global left has forgotten the horrors of Stalinism and Maoism. It is no longer capable of differentiating between grassroots control and bonapartism (i.e. rule by a strongman). The global left fools itself, furthermore it contradicts itself by thinking that following nationalist strongmen is the way to bring about a global ecologically sustainable socialist democracy. The leadership cults around Mao or Stalin in the past; Castro and Chavez today all have a common denominator: The suppression of critical thinking in favor of the BIG LIE – whatever it might be, no matter how absurd.
How Chavez Fools The Left
Honest socialists and other progressive people are focusing so much on the apparently ''anti-capitalist'', ''anti-Yankee'' rhetoric emanating from Telesur and Chavez’s various media performances (like the recent speech against F.T.A.A. in Mar del Plata, Argentina) that they are not looking at Chavez critically. The global left prefers to settle for what it wants to hear. Historically it was this weakness that led to the emergence of Stalinism (we've seen where that road led). The global left comforts itself by turning a blind eye towards what is not being done in Venezuela. The Multinationals still control the economy, the rich continue to become richer at the expense of the poor, the projects related to the so-called ‘’empowerment’’ of the urban and rural poor are no more than localized experiments, there is corruption, there is rampant crime, street children. The ‘’Cogestion’’ (i.e. workers co-management) projects are a scam. The workers never really manage anything. The ‘’workers management’’ meetings are staged for the benefit of visitors and TV cameras.
The myth of ‘’Socialism in the XXI Century’’ has captured the imagination of the contemporary global left in the same way that the ‘’Bolshevik Myth’’ (denounced by Emma Goldman as such) once seduced the idealism of the post-World War I Left intellectuals in Europe. The arguments that defenders of Chavez pose in defense of their leader were stated by many on the left in the 1930s in apology for the Stalinist system of repression: ''community clinics'', ''free education'', ''workers management'', etc. Another common argument (used in reference to the ''anti-imperialist'' posture of Chavez) is the one about the social democrats and communists failing to unite in 1932 against Hitler. In the variant of this argument that relates to Venezuela we are supposed to replace ‘’Hitler’’ with ‘’Bush’’. In our times these forms of simplistic argument exist only to mask craven opportunism. Bush is not Hitler. 2006 is not 1933.
The Political Tradition Where Chavez Belongs
In a number of ways the politics and policies of Hugo Chavez imitate those of Benito Mussolini. He is a corporatist. His program is nationalist. His strategy is demagogic and populist. He does not seek to transcend the limits of the market or republicanism per se. There is never a clear and concrete explanation as to how exactly his policies will lead Venezuela to ‘‘socialism’’. Hugo Chavez is not the ‘’anti-capitalist’’ that many on the global left would like to believe he is. Instead of repudiating the debt outright (as he would do if he was a real ‘’revolutionary socialist’’), he regularly pays Venezuelan debt bondholders and loan sharks in the City of London and New York. He has signed a number of contracts with petroleum multinationals - inclusive Chevron and Exxon Mobil. McDonalds is doing brisk business in Caracas and word has it the Wal Mart is looking to open a number of stores in the country. The ‘’anti-capitalism’’ of Hugo Chavez is only rethorical. He governs a Capitalist State.
The goal of Chavez is not ‘’socialism’’. He wants to strengthen the nation state and the republican system. Legitimate socialism would seek to transcend the republican political system on the basis of abolishing the capitalist economic system. Chavez aims to establish a system of republican corporatism based on a regulated state capitalism. This is the nature of the ‘’5th Republic’’. The philosophical roots of the national corporatist ideology that Hugo Chavez advocates are found in sociological theories developed in the 19th century by German philosopher Georges Hegel. He invented the idea of ‘’organic entities’’ that supposedly have ''natural rights'' which transcend the rights of living persons. Some of these organic entities are: ''the class'', ''the race'', ''the nation'' and ‘’the corporation’’.
The essence of the classical corporatist ideology is the idea that each person in the society must ''belong'' to a vertical entity endorsed by ''the party'' or ‘’the leader’’ (as it might apply). The person is only ''free'' in the measure that she/he merges into ''the mass organization''. The person is required to suppress her or his critical thinking faculties in the process. Much like it would happen in a religious cult. The person is no more than a part of a larger corpus, a ‘’greater whole’’. The corporatist tradition as a whole is also associated with that part of the theology of the Roman Catholic Church that denies the existence of Free Will.
The ideology of National Corporatism has precise characteristics and it appears in both the Left and the Right. In both cases, Nationalist and populist rhetoric is used by the leadership to ‘’shape’’ their base of support in the society. An example of the National Corporatism of the Right is found in the ideology of the Republican Party in the U.S.A. (Neo-conservatism). The political ideology of Hugo Chavez (Bolivarianism) is an example of the National Corporatism of the Left. In fact, George Bush and Hugo Chavez are two sides of the same coin. Both versions of National Corporatism seek to rally ''the congregated mass'' of ''patriots'' (as in the case of Bush) or ''revolutionaries'' (as in the case of Chavez) to dynamic action as directed by a central orchestrating leadership. In both cases the aim is to strengthen the capitalist state.
National Corporatist Dead-End
Socialism cannot be the product of government by strong leaders; but of the grassroots acting autonomously to first empower and then emancipate themselves from Capitalism and the State. The 'Dos Sem Terra' (The Landless) movement in Brazil is a better example of the way forward for the marginalized of Latin America (and the Global South) than are the demagogic Chavez, or the corrupt neo-liberal ''socialist'' regime of Lula da Silva.
The key weakness of the National Corporatist model (Right and Left) is precisely that systems based on it never outlive their leaders. Note what happened to the ‘’Italian Social Republic'' after Mussolini was deposed or to the ''Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’’ after Tito died. The ‘’Bolivarian Republic’’ of Hugo Chavez is headed in the same direction. The global Left is only repeating the mistakes of a previous era if they simply ''follow the leader''.
Criticizing the rush to blindly follow uncritically after a strong man is a call for sobriety. I understand perfectly what is going on. People are angry and impatient all over the global south (Latin America included) at the globalization of market fundamentalism and at Western unipolar imperialism, the proliferation of wars, repression, hunger, social chaos, global warming, etc. Yet, going back to the failed path of corporatism will not solve these problems. The path to an ecologically sustainable global socialist democracy must be forged by the independent self-empowerment and autonomic movement of the poor and marginalized. There are no substitutes, no short cuts and no magic bullets.
The potential for social and ecological solutions is there, but this potential will only be realized if people (north and south) stop looking for salvation in ''great leaders'' and strongmen and act to take matters into their own hands autonomously. We do not need corrupt politicians or demagogic ''comandantes''.
Slave Revolt Radio-Blog - a commentary on Venezuela-Iran Relations:
''In the weeks since Apartheid Israel unleashed its war machine against occupied Palestine and expanded its blitzkrieg into Lebanon, the world has become sharply polarized around the issue. Amidst the ongoing slaughter of civilians and infrastructure in Lebanon, that polarization has left precious little space for those who condemn both Apartheid Israel and Hizbullah.
Some have endeavored to understand what's happening by calling the breakout of war the start of World War III. While there is some truth to this assertion, it is too simplistic. Instead, Apartheid Israel's latest attack signifies is a racheting up of the always-ongoing class war undertaken by the forces of capital and imperialism to subdue any effort to Resist made by the global poor.
Apart from the regional powers directly involved in the conflict, no state has given more full-throated support to the Palestinian and Lebanese Resistance than Venezuela. On his birthday today, CNN reported that Comrade Chávez travelled to Iran where he was to sign a number of agreements and "receive "the High Medallion of the Islamic Republic of Iran'." ''
Full Text:
http://savagejustice.blogspot.com/2006/07/comrade-hugo-birthday-boy-presente.html
Post a Comment