Hugo Chavez Frias
Re: [Working_Class_News] Hugo Chavez and the Fifth International
Miguel Angel 20 September 2010 14:08
To: Working_Class_News@yahoogroups.com
The PSUV is not a social democrat party in the modern sense, only in the classical 1889/democratic socialist sense. The PSUV is the largest democratic socialist party in Latin America and the Western Hemisphere. It is akin to the Vänsteparteit in Sweden or the Izquierda Unida in Spain. It has as a clear and manifest goal the achievement of an existing socialism in Venezuela.
The reason ...I support the PCV in Venezuela is precisely because I understand that a simple neo-classical revival of 1889 democratic socialist politics is not enough to achieve socialism. Democratic Socialists have no long term perspective of transition or dialectics. Unlike the PSUV, PCV theory clearly explains (from an objective foundation premised upon an analysis of concrete realities) that before there can emerge a Bolivarian Existing Socialism there needs to be a consolidation of Revolutionary Democracy, and that Existing Socialism must be based on the political collective leadership of the organised working class. This is why the PCV is calling for direct representation of PDVSA and Iron workers in the Asambleas, AS WORKERS.
Accion Democratica is the social democrat party in Venezuela, akin to the PSOE in Spain. This side of Tony Blair and Lula da Silva social democrats are explicit neoliberals, what defines 2nd international social democrats (after 1995 ) is their acceptance of "the market" and their manifest rejection of the goal of constructing socialism (The Abrogation of Clause IV). They also appeal to liberal identity politics (''new social movements'') while denying class struggle. After 2006 they have adopted sao paulo forum sponsored rethoric about"corporate social responsibility" and "green capitalism" as a means of polishing their "social progressive" image.
According to Wikipedia:
The original version of Clause IV, drafted by Sidney Webb in November 1917 and adopted by the party in 1918, read, in part 4:
“To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.”
The PSUV explicitly rejects neoliberalism, imperialism and acknowledges class issues in context of seeking to construct a Bolivarian Socialism in Venezuela; this is definetly NOT social democrat. Chavez version of a Fifth international is one that seeks to revive the classical democratic socialism of Clause IV. This is why Lula da Silva is opposed to it. Via the misiones, the PSUV government has achieved the reduction of poverty and more equitable distirbution of wealth. It has established the foundations for common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exhange via the nationalisation of natural resources, sponsoring initiatives for workers control, the work of the misiones, infrastructure development, a progressive taxation regime and the abastos bicentenarios distribution chain.
A democratic socialist Fifth international would not be a bad idea right now, as it would at least reconstruct the theoretical horizon demolished in 1995 by Tony blair. It would give communists a leftist counter-argumentative point of reference that begins from the premise of positively seeking socialism, as opposed to negative rejection of neoliberalism.
The working class is not in control because Venezuela is not a socialist country. It is a state in transition from neocolonial dependency moving towards revolutionary democracy. Venezuela and Cuba cannot be judged by the standards of an ideal existing socialism or communism that does not exist anywhere in the world. Neither of these are examples of Existing Socialism. Cuba, at best, was proto-socialist in the 1970's.
A note on Iran, the Principalists acknowledge that Dr. Mossadeq was overthrown by the CIA and in his place was installed the Shah.
The Tudeh party made a mistake in 1979 of sponsoring atheism in a Muslim nation. Their atheist fundamentalism alienated them from the people. I do not agree that the Islamic Revolution was "reactionary" since it achieved liberation from neo-colonial status (imposed by the CIA after the overthrow of Dr. Mossadeq), the abolition of the monarchy, nationalisation of strategic industries, and banning of Western cultural influences. The Islamic Revolution of 1979 established the National Democracy in Iran, its precursor being the 1905 revolution that founded the parliament. The History of Iran after 1905 proves that it is possible for non-Western peoples to achieve their own self referential forms of national democracy without copying Western models based on the events of 1789 in France.
The Bolivarian Revolution identifies a process of transition from neocolonial status to revolutionary democray and Latin American integration that has impacted an entire continent and the world. Implicit are explicitly socialist inspired economic and political transformations in Venezuela that are structural and substantial (like the communal councils). This is revolutionary.
My "true goal" is to work for the achievement of spaces for political-economies of Existing Socialism in context of a global multipolar order where many worlds are possible. Existing Socialism must be constructed on the foundation of a revolutionary democracy where the ecologically sustainable extension of democracy beyond the political into the economic and social has been consolidated. Bolivarian Venezuela, Plurinational Bolivia and the Ecuador of the Citizens Revolution are clearly headed in that direction.
The Western Left needs to accept that non-Western peoples will define their own forms of struggle for national democracy or socialism in their own terms, appealing to their own values. What aplies to Shia Islam applies to Bolivar, and could apply to Daniel Shays. The missionary, evangelistic approach of the ''trotskyist'' section of the Western left is counterproductive to its stated goals.
ii.
the PSUV does operate a very well organised electoral machine. it is called the 'maquinaria roja' (red machinery). and yes its campaign command (''Bolivar 200'') utilise electioneering techniques developed by social democrat parties in europe (i believe they have hired consultants that have done work for the Spanish PSOE and the UK Labour Party). BUT the PSUV also operates a very active and well organised grassroots canvassing campaign based upon movilising the communal councils; this is where the PSUV is not social democrat in the post-1995 sense of the term. in movilising the communal coucils the PSUV campaign strenghtens the organs of nascent revolutionary democracy in Venezuela.
the PSUV is a Latin American post-Allendista / post-Carrillista "democratic socialist party" (in the classical Kautskyan/1889 sense of the term). it is post-Allendista and post-Carrillista because its leadership understood that it is not possible to carry out the "discontinous break with capitalism" (or the achievement of "basic liberal-democratic tasks" talked about in Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution) on the foundation of the political institutions of the comprador/ neo-colonial state (the cardinal mistake of Salvador Allende). this is why Chavez first refounded the state (the 1999 constitution) and then proceeded to engage in the transition process towards revolutionary democracy. the oligarchy was taken by surprise with this development and this is why in desperation it attempted the coup in April 2002. the PSUV also incorporated the Sandinista inspired concept of the "armed social revolution" and the Guevarista concept of "war of the whole people"; ergo: the civic military alliance as basis for an "armed democratic socialism". the same patrulleros that canvass the communal councils during elections can be organised into armed militias that alongside the FANB and Policia Bolivariana can defend the revolution with kalashnikovs and RPG's. none of this is of social democrat import, even by 1889 standards.
i used the example of Tony Blair in 1995 as point of reference because it was his action to abrogate clause IV in 1995 that established the definitve end of any progressive role for western social democracy, and the final end to all illusions that the western social democrat party machines (inclusive theirv trade unions) could be "taken back" by the workers. it was at that moment that western social democracy became an openly reactionary and counter-revolutionary factor. via the post-2006 sao paulo forum/world social forum cooption western social democracy is only trying to polish its ''progressive" credentials in a symbolic way in order to better fool the workers. you are right that the degeneration of the western social democrat parties begun in the 1980's. i make reference to the british labour party, because the british working class was the first to emerge in the historical scene as a definite social actor back in the mid 19th century. the british workers are the "classical workers" that served as point of reference to Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels when they developed their political-economic theories.
the PCV is calling for "Popular Power as basis for the new socialist state"; in this context the PCV is calling for direct representation of Oil and Iron workers in the Asambleas as workers. There is also a call for the formation of Workers Councils (Consejos Obreros) - modeled on the Chilean ''Cordones" of the Allende era - to serve as points for the coordination of production, and for the formulation of policies relative to wages, working conditions and worplace democracy. The PSUV is not entirely in agreement with this as it posits the Bolivarian Trade Unions as the appropriate entities to deal with issues of wages and working conditions. in this sense the PSUV is positing a classical social democrat (in the 1889 sense ) objection to communist proposals. i do not agree with the PSUV objection and that is why I back the Gallos Rojos. /n2
ii.
the PSUV does operate a very well organised electoral machine. it is called the 'maquinaria roja' (red machinery). and yes its campaign command (''Bolivar 200'') utilise electioneering techniques developed by social democrat parties in europe (i believe they have hired consultants that have done work for the Spanish PSOE and the UK Labour Party). BUT the PSUV also operates a very active and well organised grassroots canvassing campaign based upon movilising the communal councils; this is where the PSUV is not social democrat in the post-1995 sense of the term. in movilising the communal coucils the PSUV campaign strenghtens the organs of nascent revolutionary democracy in Venezuela.
the PSUV is a Latin American post-Allendista / post-Carrillista "democratic socialist party" (in the classical Kautskyan/1889 sense of the term). it is post-Allendista and post-Carrillista because its leadership understood that it is not possible to carry out the "discontinous break with capitalism" (or the achievement of "basic liberal-democratic tasks" talked about in Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution) on the foundation of the political institutions of the comprador/ neo-colonial state (the cardinal mistake of Salvador Allende). this is why Chavez first refounded the state (the 1999 constitution) and then proceeded to engage in the transition process towards revolutionary democracy. the oligarchy was taken by surprise with this development and this is why in desperation it attempted the coup in April 2002. the PSUV also incorporated the Sandinista inspired concept of the "armed social revolution" and the Guevarista concept of "war of the whole people"; ergo: the civic military alliance as basis for an "armed democratic socialism". the same patrulleros that canvass the communal councils during elections can be organised into armed militias that alongside the FANB and Policia Bolivariana can defend the revolution with kalashnikovs and RPG's. none of this is of social democrat import, even by 1889 standards.
i used the example of Tony Blair in 1995 as point of reference because it was his action to abrogate clause IV in 1995 that established the definitve end of any progressive role for western social democracy, and the final end to all illusions that the western social democrat party machines (inclusive theirv trade unions) could be "taken back" by the workers. it was at that moment that western social democracy became an openly reactionary and counter-revolutionary factor. via the post-2006 sao paulo forum/world social forum cooption western social democracy is only trying to polish its ''progressive" credentials in a symbolic way in order to better fool the workers. you are right that the degeneration of the western social democrat parties begun in the 1980's. i make reference to the british labour party, because the british working class was the first to emerge in the historical scene as a definite social actor back in the mid 19th century. the british workers are the "classical workers" that served as point of reference to Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels when they developed their political-economic theories.
the PCV is calling for "Popular Power as basis for the new socialist state"; in this context the PCV is calling for direct representation of Oil and Iron workers in the Asambleas as workers. There is also a call for the formation of Workers Councils (Consejos Obreros) - modeled on the Chilean ''Cordones" of the Allende era - to serve as points for the coordination of production, and for the formulation of policies relative to wages, working conditions and worplace democracy. The PSUV is not entirely in agreement with this as it posits the Bolivarian Trade Unions as the appropriate entities to deal with issues of wages and working conditions. in this sense the PSUV is positing a classical social democrat (in the 1889 sense ) objection to communist proposals. i do not agree with the PSUV objection and that is why I back the Gallos Rojos. /n2
---
On 19 September 2010 18:19, grok wrote:
As the smoke cleared, Miguel Angel mounted the barricade and roared out:
"what exactly do you mean by a ''marxist'' fifth international ?"
I mean an international organized on the only possible basis that won't lead to complete betrayal and defeat of the working-class one more time. Therefore it would have to be an international which excluded social-democratic parties, for instance. Like the PSUV, actually...
Let's get something else clear here Miguel: the only reason I ever hung around the "Bolivarian" revolution was because of the potential for the workers and the masses of Venezuela actually taking charge of the social-revolutionary process. But this has manifestly not only NOT been the case in Venezuela. In fact, the counter-revolution is advancing rapidly against the personal and exclusive leadership of the "christian marxist nationalist", Hugo Chavez and his "boliburgues" clique there -- as in Cuba now -- because the working-class does NOT in fact control any part of these processes. And it is very clear that in both countries a section of the leadership fully intends to sell out to capitalism -- and get their chunk of the action, as happened in the stalinist countries.
"i agree that iran should not be included because iran is an islamic national democracy (the Iranian revolutions of 1905 and 1979 viewed as a dialectical progression established the Farsi equivalent to western liberal national democracy on an islamic basis, via the foundation of a parliament and the abolition of the monarchy respectively); and not a state undergoing transition from neocolonial status to revolutionary democracy, as a precursor to the emergence of a ''bolivarian existing socialism'', as is the case with Venezuela;´"
In fact, the *socialist* revolution in Iran was betrayed to Khomeini and his murderous reactionary nationalist crew, not only by the stalinist Tudeh Party -- operating as stalinists always do in these situations: conniving with the likes conservative 'labor' elements such as the trade union apparatus -- and even the islamists for a period(!!) -- to mislead and confuse the workers at the crucial moments -- but by the usual suspects as well: the CIA, etc. Tens of thousands of irani marxists and socialists fled the country. Many were assassinated overseas (I know many of these political refugees – from both before and after the Revolution. Before, they were being hunted by the Shah's 'Savak' secret police -- with the help of Western police apparatii). Tens of thousands more inside the country were slaughtered. In fact, Miguel, there was nothing inevitable -- in the stalinist sense -- about the reactionary islamists taking control: as usual it was a 'near thing' -- and yet another avoidable tragedy. The only thing that was really missing --as usual -- was clear-minded leadership which could have anticipated these typical political landmines -- which always exist in every major social upheaval.
"i agree that the sao paulo forum and the world social forum are a social democrat fraud that has been penetrated by corporate interests and the CIA/NED this side of 2006. in stating that the global emergence of 21st century socialism where the 1999 ''battle of seattle'' and the February 15th, 2003 global anti-war demonstrations (''the day the world said no to war''); i understand that >the international anti-globalisation and anti-war upsurge of 1999-2003 ended in 2004-2005 as a result of 1) the capitulation of the global anti-war left to the Kerry campaign in 2004 and 2) the ritualisation of anti-globalisation protest during the summer of 2005; around the time of the london tube bombings (which might or might not have been staged by the Blair regime in order to take debt cancellation off the headlines). /n2"
You pretty much say it here. But the albatross of bad -- i.e. de facto non-scientific-socialist leadership and cadre -- still hangs about the neck of the internationl working-class like a noose.
The first step in fixing this situation is clarify the situation and orienting ourselves towards our true goal. And a large part of that clarification *is calling things by their true names*. And many people on the Left today are supporting "revolutions" which are very much not revolutions -- to the extent that they are being strait-jacketed by the 'leadership' of petit-bourgeois elements. Including, in effect, stalinists.
-- grok.
On 18 September 2010 18:12, grok wrote:
Miguel:
This undertaking is so woolly-minded -- coming in large part from people, many of whom no doubt think that the 'World Social Fora' remain a viable revolutionary organizing center(?!) -- it has even been seriously proposed that "revolutionary" Iran be included in this "Fifth International"..(??!!) While I already expected little of this initiative, such a suggestion/intention was certainly the last straw for me on this little project. Hugo Chavez and the people around him -- if not outright bourgeois Thermidoreans -- are every bit as eclectic, syncretist and "inclusive" -- in the very worst sense of those words -- as the equally-woolly- minded petit-bourgeois Left "identity politix" crowd: who also still look fondly on the wholly co-opted and imperialist-controlled 'World Social Fora' process... So count me out -- until the REAL 'Fifth International' begins its organizing. And it *is* going to be on a wholly _marxist_ basis – or it WILL be shit. Like this thing.
grok.
As the smoke cleared, Miguel Angel mounted the barricade and roared out:
This is a great initiative ! the bolivarian revolutions in the ALBA state are the New Socialism of the 21st Century. All the movement developments this side of the anti-globalisation and anti-war movements of 1999 to 2003, the Bolivarian Revolutionary process in Venezuela, the Citizens Revolution in Equador and the Indigenista Revolution in Bolivia, the emergence of ALBA, the movements against the effects of the financial crisis in Europe (Greece), the current Mapuche civil rights movement in Chile... all these manifestations need a new point of convergence, a new context of movement of movements, a permanent global social forum COMMITTED TO 21st CENTURY SOCIALISM, an international for our century.
the new international however must make reference to contemporary experiences of struggle relative to the 21st century (this side of the battle of seattle in 1999). the ''trotskyist'' theory of permanent revolution is an useful reference to the ALBA state revolutionary processes, but Leon Trotsky was not the only ''marxist'' to realise that in order to achive socalism in a neocoloial nation it was necessary to break with and politically liquidate the local neocolonial comprador oligarchy whose power and economic status was dependent on its realtionship with imperialism.
The PCV arrived at the conclusion that the comprador oligarchy was an obstacle to both democracy and socialism by itself due to its own experience of struggle in Venezuela since the 1930's, first against the Gomez dictatorship, then against the Peres Jimenez dictatorship and finally against the Punto Fijo regime of the fourth republic.
The new international must also take into account ecological issues. socialism is impossible without ecological sustainability, as much as it is impossible without participatory democracy and human rights (not only political and civil, but also economic and social). The call for harmonization of strategies must include insights into media democratisation and electoral grass roots organising.
The convergence of the PSUV with the Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN) and the Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front (FMLN) is a perfect foundation for the V International. The Sandinista Revolution of 1979-1990 is the direct precursor to the Venezuelan Bolivarian Revolution in the sense of these being based on the premise of a civic-military alliance that seeks to construct an ''armed democratic socialism'' in opposition to Atlantist imperialism. /n2
---
(CC) Material on this Weblog is licensed by Miguel Angel Torres, under a Creative Commons (by-nc-nd 3.0) [6] license, except for links to articles that are posted with permission. Readers are welcome to share and use material belonging to this site for non-commercial purposes, as long as they are attributed and credited to their author(s), inclusive Miguel Angel Torres.
(CC) Material on this Weblog is licensed by Miguel Angel Torres, under a Creative Commons (by-nc-nd 3.0) [6] license, except for links to articles that are posted with permission. Readers are welcome to share and use material belonging to this site for non-commercial purposes, as long as they are attributed and credited to their author(s), inclusive Miguel Angel Torres.
0 comments:
Post a Comment