INTERNATIONAL POLITICS-VENEZUELA:

MICHAEL ALBERT ON VENEZUELA:

The following was recently published on the Mostly Water site, a Canadian news aggregator. Its original source is the Z Communications site (see our Links section). What Molly finds most outstanding about this essay is that it resolutely refuses to "take sides" while, at the same time, raising all the necessary questions that should be asked about such "gleaming cities from afar" as Chavez's Venezuela. Molly has her own opinion of such matters, informed by a much more severe "class analysis" of what Albert calls the "coordinator class". But read and enjoy. All the questions that I could think of are raised here. One last comment. This essay is the same as others that I have republished from the Z-Net people. I don't agree with them totally, but the fact that I have to make NO grammatical or spelling corrections, unlike most of the anarchist sources that are presumably from English speaking people, says that they have, at least "clear thought". Good language is obvious evidence of clear thinking, whatever the fashion in academia may be these days.

....................................

Which Way Venezuela?
By Michael Albert;

July, 24 2008

- Z Nethttp://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/18250
The diverse factual reports and other data included are culled from documents made available by the Venezuelan Embassy in the U.S.

Venezuela's Bolivarian Revolution is exciting and exemplary, yet few people know much about where Venezuela is headed.

Misrepresentations abound. Data is limited and people interpret it in quite contrary ways. Information deficit plus skewed interpretations cause many people who ought to support the Bolivarian Revolution to instead doubt or even reject it. Useful lessons from Venezuela go largely unreported and thus have less than their widest possible effect.

Overview
Hugo Chavez became President in 1999 and in that year, largely due to the ravages of neoliberal reforms in the 80s and 90s, the Venezuelan poverty rate had reached 50%. The aim and promise of Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution was to not only eliminate rampant, raging, poverty, but to attain a new economic and social system consistent with the highest standards of human fulfillment and development.

In the 1999 constitution, Article 299, for example, emphasizes "human development" as the cornerstone of social judgements and Article 70 states that the "involvement of people in the exercise of their social and economic affairs should be manifest through citizen service organs, self-management, co-management, cooperatives in all forms, community enterprises, as well as other kinds of associations guided by the values of mutual cooperation and solidarity."

But, as many skeptics would point out, words are not deeds, and you can find nice words everywhere - including, say, in the constitutions of countries suffering dictatorship and economic and social injustice, as but one example, in the constitution and other literary organs of the Soviet Union under Stalin.

Words matter some, but they become infinitely more important and reliable as evidence if there are deeds in their support and particularly if institutional relations breathe life into the words every day.

So what about deeds?
Bolivarian Policies and Their Meaning
According to Venezuelan statistics, "unemployment has decreased from 14.7% in 1999 to 7.9% in 2008. Employment in the informal sector has decreased by 6.4% during that same time. The number of people living in poverty has decreased from 50.4% in 1998 to 33.6% in 2007 and the number of those living in extreme poverty has decreased from 20.3% to 9.6% in that same period. The Human Development Index (HDI) increased from 0.72 in 1998 to 0.8 in 2007, and during that time, the GINI coefficient (a measure of economic inequality) decreased from 0.49 to 0.42.5."

These changes, and many more statistical indices that could be offered - tell us there have been monumentally important improvements in the lives of many Venezuelans. But are those improvements a sign of a revolution going down a path that will lead to worthy ends including classlessness, social justice, etc.? Or are the improvements a sign of a corrupt and rotten version of familiar social structures having some of their most egregious excesses reigned back, but with no likelihood for fundamental change? Or are the improvements a marker of revolutionary change that will wind up in rotten results?

By analogy, are the gains worthy and hopeful for a hugely transformed future? Or are they like, say, gains we find in the U.S. under FDR or in Sweden transformed by social democrats? Good, but not fundamental. Or are the gains a sign of a process, temporarily serving diverse popular interests to win allies, but headed toward untoward final relations, like the Bolshevik process?

Why is it that some people see an unfolding revolution that they feel will wind up creating a new society in Venezuela and a beacon for humanity more widely? Yet other people see an unfolding struggle within existing relations, already causing some very wonderful and worthy gains, but going nowhere much beyond that? And other people see a process that is doing nice things at the moment, but which they believe is going to inexorably devolve into familiar authoritarian outcomes that will, in retrospect, compromise it all?

Is it that some people have more information to go on? Is it that there is enough information for all, but some read it one way - and others read it another way due to priori expectations or greater insight? Or is it that the information is vague, and we all tend to read into it based on whether hope or fear is momentarily most active in our consciousnesses?

I think all these reactions happen - and regardless of which is dominant, I am certain more information of a probing sort, getting at the heart of aims and methods, would help.

According to the Superintendence of Cooperatives (SUNACOOP), in Venezuela, there were 910 cooperatives nationwide in 1999, while by the end of 2007, that number had risen to 228,004. According to SUNACOOP, the cooperative sector in Venezuela now represents about 14% of Venezuela's GDP, and accounts for about 18% of employment in Venezuela. Most of the cooperatives fall under the service sector (61.29%) and the production sector (27%).

But what do these facts tell us? No one could deny that they reveal an incredible dynamism. But about ultimate aims... people will have different reactions.

In one reading, the facts noted indicate that the reform effort to make life better for the poor against the mega rich has utilized coops - a good thing. But in this reading, these facts are not the stuff of revolutionary transformation.

In another reading, the facts noted indicate that Venezuela is on the road to fundamentally transformed economic structures - a true revolution. More, folks with this reading see a revolution not just concerning property relations, but also concerning the division of labor and methods of decision making and remuneration. They see that in a world situation complicated by both a lack of revolutionary aspirations in much of the Venezuelan population and a hostile international context, the Bolivarian process is taking critical steps on the road to profound and worthy revolutionary changes which still are, however, a ways off.

In a third read, these facts show only that in Venezuela there is an appeal to poor constituencies - and while the associated reforms are good in their proximate implications for those constituencies, they are part of fundamental changes which lead in ultimately bad directions along paths we have seen revolutions travel before. Chavez says the Bolivarian goal isn't twentieth century socialism all over again - but doubters say, sure, what did you expect Chavez to say? Where's the evidence?

How does one know which read makes most sense, or even have a truly informed estimate?

We must know Venezuela's long term goals and methods as evidenced by structural lasting deeds. We must know how the changes taking place so far are viewed at different levels of society. We must know what steps the changes have involved and, even more so, what steps are in the pipeline to come? But we don't know these things. Do people who confidently say they know where Venezuela is going use tea leaves to read the future? More understandably, [do] they read into the future based on what they have seen elsewhere in times past - whether that is, for them, hopeful or fearful?
Looking Deeper
A report available from Venezuela points out that: "The rise of cooperatives began in 2001, with the Special Law of Cooperative Associations." It emphasizes the importance of the State in "promoting cooperatives through various mechanisms including education, improved access to financial services, direct tax exemption and the prioritization of cooperatives in public contracting" (Article 89). In fact, Venezuelan sources report, "economic growth accelerated in the year 2003 as a result of the implementation of these mechanisms through various state agencies."

For example, one of the most important programs in this regard was the creation of the Vuelvan Caras Mission in early 2004. In its own self description, "this state-run program offers both technical education, such as classes in agriculture, tourism or construction, and orientation as to what the Bolivarian economic projects are about." Rather incredibly, "between March 2004 and August 2007, over 670,000 people completed the program, resulting in the creation of more than 10,000 cooperatives by its alumni, more than 3,000 of which pertain to the agricultural sector."

Is this worthy reform but no more?

Is this the first moves in an inspiring journey toward a truly classless economic and social structure?

Or is this a sop to the poor while establishing a new class rule and even authoritarianism, using but then failing to fulfill poor peoples' support?

Different people see the events in Venezuela differently - but what is missing to decide with real confidence what we think, is more information about what the goals are, about the extent to which the goals are widely shared and owned by leaders or by everyone, and what the methods are and how they connect up to the goals.

"Vuelvan Caras" is one of 25 "social missions," or state-sponsored social development programs, currently operating in Venezuela "in diverse fields of human development such as education, health, culture and nutrition. They are a fundamental part of Venezuela's policy of redistributing wealth and making basic social services accessible to all citizens. Studies have found that the social missions contributed to a 9.9% decrease in the poverty rate since 2003."
But what [do] the missions mean - writ larger?

When you compare the Venezuelan government's agendas and accomplishments to what, say, the U.S. government does for its less privileged and downright poor citizens, the contrast is incredibly stark. But still, having better government policies than the U.S. is not the same as having wonderful policies. So where is it going?

I am no expert, but my guess is if we were to look back at the New Deal in the U.S. we would be able to find, over a period of years, a great many comparable statistical achievements.

Similarly, I am sure that if we were to look at the Bolshevik transition in the Soviet Union from one harsh and horrible system, to what turned out to be another, we would again see a huge pile of innovative and positive, albeit it in some cases temporary, gains. And I think we can also easily comprehend how a sincere effort to really transform a capitalist, patriarchal, culturally divided, bureaucratic society into something fundamentally oriented to human well being and development could involve diverse steps like those we see in Venezuela, giving an extensive list of short term gains, but most important also leading forward in worthy new directions. So, again, for Venezuela - which is it?

In September 2007, "Vuelvan Caras" continued under its new name, "Che Guevara," to emphasize the incorporation of new elements into its educational plan. "This new plan aims to educate students about the distinctive socio-economic models that have been evolving over time, including, for example, the Social Production Enterprise (EPS) which is [a] model that has developed in Venezuela within the last few years." These EPSs are defined by the government as "economic entities dedicated to the production of goods or services in which work has its proper and authentic value, with no discrimination associated with any type of work, no privileges related to certain positions or hierarchies and with equality between its members, based on participative planning."

That certainly sounds very good - as words. But what about associated deeds? Are there really units being constructed that involve all actors in planning and decision making and that have real equality of material and social circumstance among members, including equitable remuneration? If there are, what is the make up of these units? What features do they have? What is the plan for those features to become core to the whole economy? Should we be optimistic about these innovations carrying forward? Should we be emulating lessons?

Venezuelans report - though almost no one outside hears the words much less critically engages with them - that "in practical terms, Social Production Enterprises represent an advanced cooperative model, where part of profits are invested into community projects."

Profits? How advanced is it as a real model for a better future, if there are still profits, albeit some enlightenment in their use? "Today, there are at least 3,060 Social Production Enterprises in Venezuela, representing about 30% of the supplier contract value with state enterprises." If these are all internally on a path to classlessness, this is major news, to say the least. If these units are modestly improving internal and broader social relations with nice social policies, it is very good news, but unstable and short of revolutionary. If they are on the path to authoritarianism, then there are nice aspects, but no hope for a truly enlightened future. So which is it? Limited reform, careful but innovative and hopeful revolution, or careful but familiar and not too hopeful revolution?
Oil and Venezuela?
PDVSA, Venezuela's state-owned oil company, we are told, "has taken a lead role in bringing about the move towards a new socio-economic model. 10% of the investment volume of every project carried out by PDVSA goes into a social fund that is used for projects in education, health, infrastructure or the social missions."

This is a good policy, of course, but if Mobil in the U.S. did the same, under pressure or due to a very innovative administration, what would that mean? It would be good, but how good? The answer would depend on whether it was just a temporary policy or a step on a revolutionary path - and on where that path was going.

PDVSA, we are told, "is supporting endogenous (or inward-focused) development in Venezuela. By working hand in hand with the private sector, they plan to invest $56 million in 6 large development projects until the year 2013."

Private sector? And will that persist? And if so, will it eventually bring back all the old crap?

In Venezuela, gas for autos and other vehicles is subsidized so that the price of a tank of gas for your car in Caracas, for example, is a tiny fraction of what people pay in Boston, New York, London, or Rome. What is the logic of this policy - which is ecologically and socially backward in so many respects, but persists due to popular desire? What does not tackling the retrograde approach tell us, if anything?

In 2004, we are told, "PDVSA's national contracts were valued at $6 billion. Of this amount, 80% was concentrated in the hands of 148 firms. In accordance with the concept of participatory democracy in Venezuela, PDVSA made it a priority to democratize its supplier base, meaning that it opened up to the many small cooperatives prevalent throughout the country. This way, the state oil company fostered an endogenous model of development that is in line with Venezuela's social principals. By December 2007, PDVSA's supplier network included more than 3,000 Social Production Enterprises."

But, really, is this about fundamentally transforming the basic underlying structures of the economy - its property relations, division of labor, its modes of decision making, norms of remuneration, methods of allocation - or is it only about ameliorating the most egregious injustices while retaining old structures?

The fact that in their words, PDVSA "developed an extensive program around the inclusion of EPS, having hundreds of people work on the identification of supplier opportunities, a standardized EPS registration system, and an educational program aiming at strengthening social production enterprises and preparing them to do business with PDVSA and other government entities" is undeniably a massive social experiment that is at least, unto itself, extremely progressive. But is it more?

In its "EPS School," the potential suppliers "pass through three phases of socio-economic and technical education, receiving up to 760 hours of preparation, depending on the sophistication of the service to be provided."

But is this education about the techniques of oil provision mostly, or does it have a social and structural component building consciousness headed toward new social relations? And if the latter is true, what are the features and what success and problems are encountered?
We are told that "once an EPS has a contract with PDVSA, it commits itself to contributing about 3% of profits to PDVSA's Social Fund, which currently holds millions of dollars being invested in community projects."

Okay, is that a small step, but a step nonetheless, on the road to eliminating profit as a social category - or is it just a minor tax on firms, with profits still overwhelmingly in command?
Venezuelans quote from graduates of the EPS programs to demonstrate their impact:

"Today a dream is coming true for us. In the past, doing business with PDVSA was the privilege of a [few] large enterprises. Small companies found closed doors at PDVSA. This changed with President Chávez...now it's the first time that small businesses are given the chance to participate as suppliers and partners of PDVSA, contributing in this way to the socio-economic development of our country....and we are feeling proud of this."

Is it just a program redressing gross imbalances? Or is it, beyond what the above person perceived - a program on the road to fundamentally transforming how production, consumption, and allocation are accomplished?
Programs Beyond Our View
Here is another bit of news from Venezuela I was sent. "Beyond the Social Production Enterprises, many other new socio-economic concepts have evolved in recent years, such as the "Nuclei of Endogenous Development" (NUDES)." How many people outside Venezuela had heard of that? I hadn't.

"In Venezuela NUDES are formed when communities discover potential projects, linked to a physical space in their surroundings (installations, factories, land) and organize in and around this space to carry these projects out. For example, various cooperatives might join to reactivate the area of an abandoned factory, reviving in this way a whole neighborhood and linking the inhabitants of this area to the activities of the NUDE, such as in the case of the Nucleus Fabricio Ojeda."

Again, you can imagine these efforts existing as a broad social democratic effort to improve the distribution of income, engender participation, etc., while maintaining the basic structure of society. Or you can imagine them to be part of a movement and process that will wind up in the old style socialist swamp. Or you can imagine them as a part of a rich and diverse process seeking something entirely new, true classlessness, real participation, even self management.
To judge which picture is real depends on knowing what is said, day to day, back and forth, by the people involved. Are the changes seen as tributaries of a growing tide - or are they seen as the whole point, themselves? Is the process coming ever more under the control of the populace, or is it centralizing outside the purview and influence of the populace?

We hear that, "a huge inventory plant in the neighborhood Catia in Caracas had been inactive for 12 years until the community decided to turn it into a NUDE. In February 2004, 330 persons formed 24 cooperatives for carrying out diverse construction projects in the nucleus and bringing the area back to life. Today, the Nucleus is a flourishing and active community center hosting more than 60 cooperatives in various areas and counting on important facilities and services such as health care clinics, Misión Che Guevara, sports camps and pharmacies, just to name a few. Today one can find more than 100 NUDES in Venezuela including more than 950 cooperatives active in various fields and especially in agriculture."

Again, it is very clearly a vast and exciting social and economic project with extremely progressive implications. That much is certain. But beyond that, we still don't know.
"Social Production Networks are formed when a Nucleus connects with other Nuclei, or with cooperatives, EPS's, Socialist Production Units or any form of alternative organization to carry out activities for the benefit of the community."

One person sees in this New Deal innovation and dynamism(probably the right view-Molly). Another person sees in it positive programs which, however, will sooner or later be compromised by elite rule. A third person - okay, I am this person - sees an incredibly rich pattern of innovation which seems to auger truly revolutionary aims. What I see seems to be building up, slowly, on a base that was not highly politicized, and in a hostile international context, the infrastructure of new relationships in a kind of parallel economy and polity, that will be ready, in time, to challenge for the future of Venezuela(As long as it is ready to challenge the "revolutionary myth" of the Chavez government-Molly.)

Another innovative feature of the Bolivarian project - or revolution - depending on your opinion - are the Socialist Production Units. These "are companies run by the government and marked by extensive community involvement. UPS's are found predominantly in the agricultural sector, and they promote national agricultural sovereignty. Part of the profits of these companies is invested into community projects, which are identified jointly with local community leaders. In the long term, UPS's will ideally be handed over directly to the community and run as community enterprises."

Profit? Maybe it is just a word, referring to something other than surpluses accruing to private owners. And what of the internal organization of the "socialist" structures. Are they internally like the 20th century firms of Russia, say, or do they offer something new, or headed toward something new, at least? And if there is originality, what shape does it take? Does it address the division of labor? The norms of remuneration? The modes of decision making? The allocation relations to other firms and consumers?

For example, we are told that the UPS Agrimiro Gabaldon which was "formerly a privately-run coffee plantation" was "forced to close down due to a drop in coffee prices," but "was recently inaugurated as a Socialist Production Unit." The report says that "under the new model, it extended its coffee cultivation area from 35 hectares to 96 hectares in the year 2005, and began selling its output mainly to public entities."

Okay, but did the plantation also alter its internal division of labor? Is it becoming democratic or even self managing? Is it becoming equitable in its approach to wages? Does it compete with other firms - or cooperate?

We hear that "thanks to the creation of these NUDES, Socialist Production Units, and Social Production Networks, an important number of neglected sites and companies have been revived, providing new jobs and linking local economies to local communities to carry out infrastructure and social projects."

In other words, the changes are occurring in firms and neighborhoods where things are virtually falling apart. Is this a wise strategic/tactical way to begin innovations, to make them seen, to develop support for them, and then to spread them? Or is it a kind of emergency method for dealing with horrendous problems, to be transcended later, by settling for more familiar and less innovative and participatory options when the worst problems are left behind?
We hear that "in order to strengthen regional economies and make them less vulnerable to financial crisis, the government of Venezuela has actively supported the rise of barter system and the creation of communal currencies throughout Venezuela. Currently, about 4,000 people practice bartering in 6 different regions in Venezuela (Yaracuy, Falcón, Sucre, Nueva Esparta, Margarita, Barinas, Trujillo). Each has its own local currency. Agricultural products are mainly available for barter trade, and the practice fosters local agriculture."

This reveals that indeed some changes are stopgap and instituted only to deal with problems that wouldn't be present in a transformed future. Other changes, however, may be part of that future. Which are which?

We hear that "Communal Banks were developed hand in hand with Communal Councils, or elected neighborhood-based councils. Communal Councils oversee local politics and execute development projects geared toward improving the socio-economic status of their communities. The concept of Communal Councils is grounded in the Law of Communal Councils, which was passed in April 2006."

Is this a method for getting out of poverty with support from the population - or even beyond that is it the beginning of structures of local grass roots self management that will eventually override the apparatus of mayors, governors, president, etc.?

Communal Banks "are the financial arm of the Communal Councils. They are constituted as cooperatives and administered democratically by five persons elected to the Citizens' Assembly, which is the highest decision-making body of the Communal Councils. Communal Banks facilitate the flow of resources toward community development projects."

Is this an example of doing some good things with old structures? Or is it a step away from old structures and toward overcoming market logic and behavior, having investments and production and consumption determined by cooperative negotiations among producers and consumers? We need more information to have a solid opinion.
A New Type of Economy and Polity?
We are told that "according to the Ministry of Popular Power for Participation and Social Development, there were 19,500 Communal Councils in Venezuela by March 2007, and the majority of them received funding from various ministries and state institutions."

Some would say local councils - venues for neighborhood folks to be politically involved - are little more than means for the government to poll a passive populace.

Others would say it is even worse, they are the infrastructure of state intervention and oversight of daily life, via snitches and the like(like the situation in Cuba-Molly).

Others would suggest, and I am in this last more optimistic camp, that these local structures are the beginning of an effort to build a completely new type of political system - for legislation, adjudication, and also, as per above, for implementation of shared programs.

In Venezuela you have the new, the incredibly new, the old, and the incredibly old - and you could replace the word new with progressive and the word old with reactionary and the sentiment would remain valid. It is not easy to navigate such complex phenomena, with limited consciousness present in the population, with media and finances arrayed against your endeavor, and trying to avoid open warfare and win change peacefully, and to simultaneously be forthright and clear at every stage about where things are headed. It is easy to empathize with the complexity and constraints and to understand why information is limited. Still, if possible, clarity would help win informed allies, supporters, advocates, and perhaps most important, would spur emulation elsewhere as well.

We are told that "by March 2008, the Ministry of Popular Power for the Communal Economy alone has approved more than $400 million to be handed over to 2,540 Communal Banks for productive projects. 1,533 of these banks have already received the whole amount assigned to them, and another 833 received part of the amount. With this money, 21.277 micro-credits were allotted to cooperatives and individual entrepreneurs. Most is used for projects in the service industry, or in commerce or agriculture."

Okay, this is obviously very good by many standards, but is it revolutionary?

"By the end of this year, FONDEMI (the Microfinance Development Fund) plans to finance 3,000 more Communal Banks, distributing yet another $420 million for productive projects."
This is clearly also very pogressive, but will it lead to a temporarily enlightened and certainly better developed Venezuela which is still, however, fundamentally capitalist, patriarchal, etc.? Or will it yield a Venezuela that is socialist in the old manner - the 20th century style? Or will it yield, as Chavez urges, something new, a classless and socially just society?

We are told that "thanks to the thousands of community projects carried out by Communal Councils, many important initiatives such as street pavings, sports fields, medical centers, and sewage and water systems have been financed and implemented."

Is this the New Deal Venezuelan style - and like the New Deal likely only to revert to familiar shapes once crises are averted and development proceeding? Or is it a process using reforms as means of arousing support, but headed toward old socialism? Or is it a process using diverse reforms as means to enlist participation, comprehension, and creativity, not passive support but active participation, toward a truly new type society?
21st Century Socialism?
Hugo Chavez tells us he wants to build twenty first century socialism. He often decries market relations. He regularly excoriates capitalism. His innovative approaches to popular political and economic decision making via councils and his prioritization of radicalized health, education, and other human services via innovative public missions, inspire great hope. But beyond Bolivarian claims and short term policies, where is the Bolivarian Revolution structurally going? What are its main institutional goals and timetables? What are the methods it is employing and will employ to attain its ends? These are questions I think a lot of people need answers to if they are to have solid attitudes about Venezuela.

By self description Hugo Chavez is aggressively anti-capitalist, but what does that mean?

Regarding economics, for example, does the Bolivarian revolution reject private ownership of the means of production? Verbally it says it does, and likewise in many innovative structures - but what about the bulk of the economy(No kidding-Molly)?

Does the Bolivarian revolution reject markets? Again, verbally, yes, I think it does. More, internationally, it seems to already often conduct trade and international aid by cooperative negotiation that ignores competitive market dictates(I think that this statement desreves serious proof beyond the Chavez desire to subsidize the Cuban dictatorship-Molly). This is wildly hopeful, not just for solidarity in Latin America, but as a challenge to the entire system of market exchange. But is there a path for transcending market relations writ large?

Does the Bolivarian revolution, as an aim, to be attained when able in light of growing consciousness and means, reject capitalistic remuneration such as people getting profit on property, or getting wages for bargaining power or even for output?

Similarly, does the Bolivarian revolution reject capitalism's typical division of labor in which about 20 percent of the workforce monopolizes all the empowering tasks while the other 80 percent does only rote, repetitive, and obedient labor?

Is the gigantic spurt of Bolivarian attention to innovative education - including not just literacy campaigns but also the Bolivarian University, etc. - meant to catch up to typical educational achievements of developed countries? Or is it meant to create a population able to control its own destiny rather than being ruled from above?

Given that Chavez is against particular capitalist institutions, does he have a feeling for what would replace them in a better economy? Do the other ministers of the government have visionary aims? Do the grassroots activists in the missions and coops? What about the broad public? How are aims to be generated? How are they to become widely advocated? How are they do won? Is there a path of innovation that can bring these features into play?

Put differently, if the Bolivarian Revolution is for twenty first century socialism, I wonder what that means? What is it about the old twentieth century socialism, for example, that Chavez and the Bolivarian revolution rejects? Is it central planning such as we saw in the Soviet Union? Is it markets such as we saw in Yugoslavia? Is it the typical 20th century socialist division of labor as we have seen it in Russia, Yugoslavia, and China, which is essentially the same as the division of labor we see in capitalism? Is it the norms of remuneration these socialisms have employed, which while they have jettisoned profit for property have retained payment for power and output? I hope and suspect it is all those things that are being dumped, but I don't know. And if it is, saying so would not only help people get excited about supporting the project, but would also inspire people to engage in similar movements elsewhere.

Similarly, in whatever ways Chavez disagrees with "twentieth century socialism," what does he propose to construct in Venezuela instead? And more, beyond the President, to what extent do other Venezuelans have similar aspirations? To what extent will other Venezuelans, especially at the grassroots, help define outcomes and attain them?
A New Participatory Society?
Regarding the economy, does the Bolivarian revolution believe workers and consumers should have a say in economic decisions in proportion as they are affected by them - which would be self management? Does it believe self managing workers and consumers councils, not boards of directors or managers, should be the seat of economic decision making power in each workplace? Does it believe there should be decentralized and participatory planning by these workers and consumers councils, including a cooperative negotiation of allocation rather than top down command allocation or competitive market allocation?Does it believe workers should be remunerated for how long and for how hard they work, and for enduring onerous conditions, but not for property, power, or even the value of output? If these features aren't part of the Bolivarian economic agenda, then what is preferred for Venezuela's future economy and why? When can such features appear in the state sector, in the coop sector, in the private sector? What are the hopes and plans?

And beyond the economy, Chavez has been very vocal not only about democracy in the polity, but about Venezuelans literally being able to have a say over their own social and political lives. Does the Bolivarian revolution reject, not only capitalist economics, but also the typical top down alienated approaches to government we see in the world today? Is the Bolivarian Revolution seeking something fundamentally different for politics with its grass roots assemblies, and if so, what are the values and features it prefers? Will these local assemblies be transmission lines for the will of rulers at the top? Or will these assemblies in time usurp mayors, governors, and the president himself, being the ultimate seat of political participation and influence?

Many international observers are worried there is a personality cult around Chavez. They site the lack of leaders who enjoy anywhere near as much popularity as he does and also slogans such as "Chavez is the people," "With Chavez anything, without Chavez nothing," or "Who is against Chavez is against the people." If these sentiments and the key role of Chavez is a necessary part of the early stages of transforming toward greater participation and self management, shouldn't their centrality and logic be better explained, and shouldn't it be very explicitly labelled an interim method, not a permanent goal?

Likewise, is there any exploration, as yet, of new approaches to law enforcement and adjudication? I would bet there are, but I have no idea. And wouldn't it be good for people to know, if we are to relate as more than voyeurs - and if we are to be able to dig in and try our own hand at related work? On the other side of the coin, human rights groups have criticized Venezuela's penal code saying that the 2004 reform of the penal code makes certain bad aspects of the penal code worse, such as its provision outlawing disrespect of government officials. Is such a clause really necessary? Why is it there? Why not get rid of it (Can i Suggest that it will be nothing but strengthened-Molly)?

And does the Bolivarian revolution have a revolutionary agenda around gender issues and around race issues? Is it ultimately seeking only vastly better gender and race policies but within old structures, a major and profound gain, to be sure - but not the ultimate revolution in culture and gender we all desire. Or are there fundamental changes it seeks in underlying familial and cultural institutions? Policies protecting minorities and advancing the rights [of] women are exemplary. But does the Bolivarian revolution have ideas about what additional needed structural changes might be, and if not, does it have a method for arriving at potential ideas and then evaluating them? Is there to be that kind of participation?

I would also like to know about Bolivarian media, not least because there is so much confusion, so much ruckus about it. Venezuelan mainstream media are currently narrowly owned and controlled and in no way reflect the desires of the Venezuelan population. Indeed, to whatever extent they are able to do so, Venezuelan mainstream media are hell bent on hindering positive change. I wonder about the Bolivarian view of how media ought to be organized in a better future? And I wonder what the plans are for media in Venezuela.

It has seemed, from far away, that the Bolivarian approach to education, health, coops, and the media as well, and other areas too, has been to construct a parallel set of structures to what now exists - for example, the Bolivarian University, health clinics, thousands of coops, and a Bolivarian state run TV station and I bet a newspaper soon, too - with the idea that these new approaches will in time replace the old ones. Is that the plan? And is there concern that the arena in which this competition between old and new occurs is the arena of the market, which of course does not favor solidarity, sociality, etc.? And does this plan, this approach to discovering, refining, and then spreading new models, given all the difficult constraints it tries to navigate, do a sufficient job of enlisting the leadership of the Venezuelan people in the definition of their new society? Regarding media, for example, rather than a face off between private and state run, what place is there for grassroots community based and otherwise self managed media beholden to the public and its workers, but not owners or the state?
International Relations and Where is Venezuela Going?
As we all know, the United States routinely uses its wealth to bludgeon foreign countries in ways overwhelmingly aimed at preserving and enlarging the power and wealth of U.S. elites not caring a whit about the suffering this imposes on others. Venezuela also seems to be utilizing its assets in the international arena via initiating diverse trading patterns, grants, etc. I wonder what guides these acts? Why isn't it explicit - thereby providing a norm against which we can all judge international exchanges?

When Venezuela exchanges oil and other products with other countries, is the Bolivarian revolution intent upon exchanging at market rates, or does it have a different attitude about what ought to determine exchange rates, and if so, as certainly seems to be the case(NO,NO NO it doesn't except in the case of Cuba and buying Cuban labour at "below market" rates- a good deal for Venezuela), what is it?

And finally, by way of understanding the timing of the Bolivarian Revolution, I wonder what Chavez and other Venezuelan activists expect to be the most important and exemplary accomplishments in Venezuela in the next five or ten years? And I wonder the extent to which Chavez's views and the views of other Bolivarian government officials, labor leaders, and grass roots activists compare with the views of the broad population? Is the broad public in synch with activist agendas or is it just watching - more or less as by-standing save in moments of crisis? Is the population ready to take initiative in advances or is it being pulled along without taking its own initiatives? And if the public is largely passive, what steps are in place to enliven public involvement and will they be pursued and pursued and pursued, rather than falling back on old models?

The above are just part of the kinds of concerns I have repeatedly heard from sensible and serious leftists about Venezuela. Clarifying may well involve strategic difficulties for the Bolivarian Revolution internally and on the world stage as well. But clarifying also promises a gigantic leap in interest from outside Venezuela and of active support at home, I suspect, as well.

The Brazilian path has been to moderate and accommodate and restrain not just communications, but also policies, in order to prevent massive external opposition. The price of that choice has been to dramatically reduce the worth of the whole undertaking. Hopefully Venezuelans will find a different way to ward off external assault. How about strength domestically and internationally, predicated on people knowing what is occurring and even being part of exploring option[s], choosing paths, and creating related and supportive commitments.

VENEZUELA:

EXPOSING THE LIES OF THE CHAVEZ REGIME:

With the continued disintegration of state socialism, whether it be Leninist or social democratic, its advocates have been forced to borrow/steal wholesale from the "toolkit" of libertarian socialism. Few outside of the most doctrinaire communists promote simple nationalization as a solution to anything nowadays. Even when promoting such policies- which serve their own class interests as a would-be new ruling class controlling/owning such property- they are almost invariably obliged to cover their tracks with cant about "self-management", "cooperatives" or "co-management". All of these attempts to obscure the truth of their desire to rule are rather threadbare in countries where communist or social democratic parties have already had their historical "kick-at-the-can", but they still manage to have some currency in countries where the population has yet to see the reality in action and amongst leftists in other countries who have a "grass is always greener" approach to anything and everything which appears (at least temporarily) to oppose the American Empire. The longest standing example of this here in North America is "Cuba Worship", and this form of transferred patriotism can take some very bizarre forms. I've witnessed it myself in watching lefties trumpet the virtues of Cuba's medical system as so much better than ours here in Canada while at exactly the same time trying their hand out at charity solicitation by raising money to send medical basics such as fluids, syringes, catheters, etc. (goods often past their expiry date) down to help the Cubans. Ah...the whole idea of "one or the other", either "so much better" or "near to collapse" cannot cross their minds because they are trapped in an ideological fantasy world. But there have been a new series of Third World Heroes to worship recently. These gradually lose their lustre. One hardly hears a squeak of approval nowadays, where there used to be roars, about Lula's government in Brazil. The trouble is that the North American left seems permanently unable to learn from its previous embarrassments.

The latest white knight on the jousting field is the Chavez government in Venezuela. The following article is originally from El Libertario, an anarchist publication "on the ground" in Venezuela. I reprint this from a version found at the Anarkismo site.

...........................................

Memories of “Popular Power” in Venezuela’s Economy

by El Libertario, Venezuela Friday, May 23 2008,
* From false co-management and cooperatives to the deceitful EPS, we present a balance of what has happened in Venezuela after at least 7 years of pretending to build a socialist economy, where the available data and verifiable facts belie the failure of the Chavez administration.

Since 2001 we have heard the government’s promises to foster a production model where the Venezuelan state would create the conditions to enable and support the growth of a new endogenous economy – at first denominated popular or in solidarity, later socialist – started 4 years ago amid a plethora of promises to entice voters in the referendum of August 2004, and repeated in later electoral contests. As per the offer, the main actors and managers would be the workers involved via socialist co-management of already existing enterprises or newly constituted cooperatives. This discourse became more intense and radical as the years went by, when everybody, from Chavez on down to the last official voice would not cease to repeat that the irreversible construction of a revolutionary and participatory production structure had started, in which were invested all efforts and resources possible, as emphatically proclaimed every Sunday during the presidential TV show, from where the slogan “factory closed, factory taken” (by their workers) was announced and where we were told that we had become the country with the most cooperatives in the whole world.

* Questioning the farce

Very soon, we anarchists started to warn (see nos. 38, 42 and 43 of El Libertario) about what was hiding behind the proclaimed intention to “build Bolivarian socialism” as the official slogan proclaimed. This is in essence what we have said about it:

- The state-promoted cooperatives were a way to minimize the statistics of unemployment and of employment in the informal economy, an easy way to generate temporary employment, underpaid and without benefits, where the precarious working conditions prevalent in the majority of the flaming socialist cooperatives soon became evident, where one or a few – connected to the spheres of official power upon which depend the survival of these initiatives – end up being the bosses of the rest of the “associates”. As far as concrete results from this boom of Bolivarian cooperatives, see next.

---------------------

Numbers from the “cemetery of cooperatives”

// According to SUNACOOP (National Supervisory of Cooperatives) and other official pronouncements there are 200,000 registered cooperatives, although in 2007 there was talk of 250,000; nevertheless, in attempting to formally quantify real cooperative activity – a survey by SUNACOOP in 2006 – the number was barely 47,000 cooperatives.

// According to official propaganda, the missions Vuelvan Caras I and II between 2004 and 2006 received 954 million Bolivars that allowed 627,554 lancers (mission participants) to organize 6,814 cooperatives, in turn grouped in 130 Nuclei of Endogenous Development.

// Qualified experts on cooperatives in this country question the validity and the simplistic bent of the official data: Oscar Bastidas has said that what really exists is a “cemetery of cooperatives”; while Alberto Dorrenochea says that in the most optimist scenario there would be some 15,000 active cooperatives.

// Out of the 47,000 associations surveyed in 2006, 67% (31,486) were not active. Considering the total surveyed, 74.5% are registered as commerce and services. Hardly 14% (6,580) have received financial support from public or private banks, of which a little more than half have accounted for the resources received.

// The 2006 survey includes 4,836 cooperatives registered by participants in the Vuelvan Caras missions, which is 29% less than the number published by the official propaganda. Out of that number surveyed, only 49% (2,370) were active, of which 76% are in commerce and communal services, while only 24% (569) were involved in production.

--------------------

- Since the beginning, co-management has been a ruse so that a handful of private enterprises in bankruptcy or serious difficulties (about half a dozen in the country) could become government property by way of “expropriations” that in every case were juicy business for the former owners (and their associates in the government) and with no protest from those affected by this presumably anti-capitalist action being heard. There was also a state enterprise (Alcasa) around which the myth of the achievement of a socialist co-managed administration was created, which has been questioned with powerful arguments (see El Libertario #51 and press releases about Alcasa early in 2008)

- Unfortunately, cooperatives and co-managed enterprises for the most part owe their existence less to struggle and/or grass-roots consciousness raising and more to a need for imagery to seduce the popular sectors – attracted by the offer of money, employment and government backing – as well as the militants convinced that they are part of a deepening revolutionary process; and that’s the reason why they are also useful to domesticate and contain possible insurgency from sectors susceptible to radicalization or to asking uncomfortable questions, as well as for the creation of new political clients.

- In practice, the Venezuelan state wants to maintain absolute control over these initiatives. To their chagrin (and more and more, over their sore backs) many workers have seen that socialist verbosity on Sunday TV is one thing and concrete action by the state is another, that the state only loosens the purse strings and gives support when it has the obedience of the “Sovereign” as the Chavez machine likes to call its docile followers, without forgetting the insulting cynicism of this authoritarian intervention being made via ministries self-proclaimed as from the “Popular Power” since January 2007.

* More Fairy Tales

The failure of cooperatives and co-management of the kind promoted by the government is evident between the end of 2007 and beginning 2008, in consequence the official discourse has had to mutate and now we have the joke of Socialist or Social (both are used) Production Enterprises (EPS in the Spanish acronym) proclaiming that now, yes, we have the formula to arrive at the promised land of Socialist Endogenous Development. The truth is that explaining what EPS’s are is a useless exercise since under this acronym they include what’s left of cooperatives and co-managed enterprises plus state-owned companies and private capitalist firms that for one reason or another align themselves with the state.

Recent official proclamations (see El Universal 03/11/08) say that by 2009 there will be 73 new EPS’s, the result of the “Socialist Factories” plan, under indirect social management – a euphemism that translates as state-owned capitalist enterprises – that would be the base for future endogenous industrialization. Such announcement can only be taken as a joke, considering what happened to Alcasa, Invepal, Invetex, Inveval, Sideroca/Venetub, Sanitarios Maracay, Central Azucarero Cumanacoa, Central Azucarero Motatan, Merida’s Solid Waste Treatment plant, Sabaneta’s Centinela tomato farm, to mention only the most recent cases which can be corroborated in the press and the Internet, where it has been mainly the workers who pay for the damages caused by corruption, authoritarianism and incompetence which are the product of the vile actions of this “Popular Power” when it intervenes in industrial activity.

Armando Vergueiro

[Translation: Luis Prat]

(El Libertario #53, p.5, May- June 2008, Venezuela)
http://www.nodo50.org/ellibertario

VENEZUELA:

CHAVEZISMO VERSUS THE WORKERS ONCE MORE:

The following essay is reprinted from the News section of the Libcom site. It was translated from the Spanish language Internacionismo, affiliated with the 'International Communist Current'. Molly has blogged briefly on the subject of "left-communism" before, and there is little doubt that I do not consider them as realistic in their tactics or accurate in their theory. If I wanted to sum them up I would say that they are the last real Marxists on Earth. Well over a century after all of Marx's theories were disproven (or , more often,contradicted by those who wished to call themselves "Marxists) they hold to the theories of Das Kapital in all their baroque and antique "glory". Yet, such fundamentalism has its virtues as well as its vices. These people put themselves into a position where they can have zero chance of ever affecting the world, but, just because they are in such a position they are thoroughly immune to the ill-disguised power worship of too much of the left. They may not recognize that the economic system mis-named as "socialism" is the tool whereby a new managerial ruling class claws its way to power, but they have the unfailing instinct to reject this lie, even if they give it the wrong name. Their instincts are true in that they recognize immediately that such leftist demagogues as Chavez are representatives of a ruling class rather than "liberators".But anyways, here is the article.

.................................................

Steel workers' strike in Venezuela attacked by Chavez' state
tags:

Steel workers in Venezuela have been attacked by the Chavez government following a series of strikes.
The following is a translation from Internacionalismo.
The Chávez government - with the support of the opposition and unions - has unleashed repression against the workers of the Steel Zone of Venezuela who are struggling for their most basic necessities. Here we see the real Senor Chávez and his "socialism of the 21st century".

After more than 13 months of discussion of their collective contract, the steel workers at Ternium-SIDOR have had enough. Indignant about the starvation wages they receive (near to the minimum salary, in one of the regions of Venezuela with the highest cost of living) and the deplorable working conditions that have lead to the deaths of 18 workers and left dozens ill from industrial illness over less than a decade, they have carried out several strikes against the firm's refusal to meet their demands about wages and working conditions.

Various parts of the media have echoed the firm's campaign of victimisation, claiming that their demands amount to more than the firm's annual sales. These lies form part of a "black out" of information, both from the opposition media and the official media, about the true causes of the metal workers' struggles. Since the 1990's these workers have been subjected to a policy of cuts in pay and working conditions, introduced through the programme of restructuring, that has led to their benefits being lower than other workers in the region. The metalworkers' struggle is about a decent level of living. They know that if they accept the company's terms and conditions [1] they will suffer more than two years of miserable increases in their wages and benefits, whilst the price of food and the cost of living increases by more than 30% annually, according to the none too reliable figures of the Central Bank of Venezuela. Another important demand of the movement is to make the contracted workers (who make up 75% of the workforce of 1,600) permanent, since this will give them better benefits. Thus, the struggle of the SIDOR workers is expressing the discontent and uncertainty that dominates the workers in the region and the whole country, faced with the endless increase in the price of food and cost of living generally, along with precarious working conditions.

Likewise, the metalworkers have had enough of the bickering between representatives of the company, government and unions. The latter in particular have progressively undermined the initial demands of the movement (the unions are now "demanding" 50 Bolivars a day, whereas at the beginning of negotiations it was 80). Having fulfilled all of the requirements for going on strike, they took part in the high level commission formed by the nefarious triumvirate. Whilst these gentlemen discussed behind the workers' backs, the workers themselves assembled at the steel work's doors and decided to carry out several stoppages, the most important of these being that of the 12th March for 80 hours which expressed the radicalisation of the movement. They did not have to wait long for the firm and the state to respond: on the 14th March the National Guard and police unleashed a furious repression, leaving more than 15 workers injured and 53 arrested. With this repressive action the Chávez government has unmasked itself in front of the workers: it cast aside its "workers" uniform and put on its true uniform, that of the defence of the interests of the national capital. It is not the first time that the "workers and socialist" state has attacked workers' struggle for their own demands: we only need to mention for example, the terrible repression meted out to oil workers last year who were struggling to improve their working conditions.

The SUTISS union is also part of the repression of the workers (despite union leaders suffering repression), since its role is to act as a fireman in the movement. It tries to put itself at the head of the movement whilst negotiating a reduction in the wage demand.
Referendum and nationalisation: new traps for the movement

Faced with the workers' intransigence, they have pulled another trick from up their sleeve: the holding of a referendum in order to consult each worker about their agreement or not with the firm's proposals. Promoted by the Chavist minister of Labour (a Trotskyist or ex-Trotskyist), the proposal has already received the agreement of the SUTISS, though with certain "conditions". Class instinct has led several workers to reject this trap, which is aimed at undermining the sovereign assemblies (where the real strength of the working class is expressed) by turning each worker into a "citizen", who will have to define himself for or against the firm and state in isolation by means of the ballot box!! Faced with this the workers need to affirm themselves through their sovereign assemblies.

Another trap used against the movement is the proposition by the unions and various "revolutionary" sectors of Chavism to renationalise SIDOR, which is mainly owned by Argentine capital (the Venezuelan state owns 20% of the shares). This campaign could be a disaster for the struggle, since the workers have no choice but to confront the capitalists, be they Argentine or Venezuelan state bureaucrats. Nationalisation does not mean the disappearance of exploitation; the state-boss, even with a "worker's" face, has no other option than to permanently try to attack workers' wages and working conditions. The left of capital presents the concentration of companies in the hands of the state as a quick way to "socialism", hiding one of the fundamental lessons of Marxism: the state is the representative of the interests of each national bourgeoisie, and therefore the enemy of the proletariat. The Chavist bourgeoisie today is the head of the state which is seeking to increase the amount of surplus value it can gain, and in the name of "Bolivarian socialism" massively increases the level of precariousness of work through the missions and jointly managed companies (as happened with the workers of Invepal or Inveval).

These "Bolivarian revolutionaries" try to make the workers forget that for many years SIDOR was a state firm, and that they have had to struggle at various ties against the high rank bureaucrats of the state who administered it and their forces of repression, struggling for their own demands but also against the unions (the allies of capital in the factories). At the beginning of the 70's during the first Caldera government, this included burning down part of the installations of the CTV in Caracas in response to its anti-worker actions.

The state has been in the hands of the Chavists since 1999, but has not magically lost its capitalist character. All that has changed are its clothes, which now have a "socialist" colouring; but it is still a fundamental organ in the defence of the interests of capital against those of labour. The fact that Chávez presents himself as a "Sidorist" or a "worker" when it suits him should not confuse us about the class character of the Chavist government, which capital put in place in order to defend its system of exploitation as it sinks deeper and deeper into crisis. The workers are not so stupid as to believe these "revolutionaries" who put forwards the panacea of "re-nationalisation", but who live like bourgeois, earning salaries 30 times or more than the official minimum wage.
The only way to win: real workers' solidarity and solidarity with the population

The only way that this movement can succeed is through looking for solidarity. Initially with the contract workers, where the demand to make them permanent is one of the principle expressions of solidarity; but it is no less important to win the solidarity of workers in other branches of industry, at the regional or national level, since whether we work in the state sector or the private sector, we are all being hit by the blows of the economic crisis. It is also necessary to express solidarity with the population of Guayana, where the unemployed are affected by the high cost of living, and by the problems that the state cannot resolve, such as delinquency, housing, etc. However, this solidarity cannot be carried out through the unions, since they are the main organs for controlling the struggle, creating divisions between different industries and sectors, and in the last instance, complementing state repression; neither can solidarity with the local population be left in the hands of the social organisations created by the state, such as the communal councils. Solidarity must be "generated" by the workers themselves, through assemblies open to other workers.

The struggle of the metalworkers is our struggle, because they are fighting for a decent life, for the benefit of the whole of the proletariat. But the best benefit, apart for the momentary increase in the level of wages, resides in the development of consciousness of the strength that the proletariat has in its own hands, outside of the unions and the other institutions invented by the state in order to control social discontent.

The national bourgeoisie know that the situation in Guyana is intensely dangerous to its interests. The concentration of workers in this region and their experience of past struggles makes it very explosive, since at the same time there is a wider accumulation of labour and social discontent which has existed for some time due to the attacks on employment and workers' living conditions. In this sense, the so-called Metal Zone has a potential for transforming itself into a focal point for the workers' struggle in the country, as happened in the 60's and 70's.

The SIDOR workers have taken the only road possible for confronting the attacks of capital, that of the struggle. Spreading the fight to other branches of regional and national production, whilst looking for solidarity from the population as a whole: this is the road that will enable the Venezuelan proletariat to become part of an international movement for the overthrow capital and the creation of a real socialist society.
Note

[1] An increase of 44 Bolivars divided up as follows: 20 initially, 10 more in 2009 and another 10 in 2010, with another 1.5% based on performance.

VENEZUELA:

CHAVEZ VERSUS THE WORKERS:

(FROM LIB-COM)

The following short but interesting article from the Lib-Com site tells of a recent strike in Venezuela. The reader will note the last paragraph where the response of the 'Bolivarian state' to a previous strike at this facility was to use state forces to break the strike. The siding of the state with the employers in this case seems to be a matter of real-politic in the diplomatic sense, as the so-called "populist" Chavez puts the interests of Venezuelan workers behind those of other South American regimes that he wishes to be on friendly terms with. Yet even within Venezuela itself there is more than enough evidence of how what is called the "Boli-bourgeoisie" benefits from an increasingly corrupt government hiding behind radical phraseology.

...................................................................................

Three day strike at Venezuelan steelmaker


Workers launched a 72-hour strike at Venezuela's largest steelmaker, Ternium Sidor, late on Tuesday to protest stalled contract talks.
"The strike is for 72 hours and it started last night," said union leader Jose Rodriguez.

Workers have repeatedly shut Sidor, 60 percent owned by Argentina's Ternium, as part of demands for higher pay in what has been a 14-month dispute for a collective contract. The union on Monday called a 24-hour strike as part of the same dispute.

This is the sixth time this year that the plant, located in the southwest state of Bolivar, has been shut down as part of demands for higher pay. The union says it will not accept a daily salary increase of less than 53 Bs.F (US$24), however, the company says its final offer is 44Bs.F (US$20.5) per day.

An earlier protest by Sidor workers on March 14, in the midst of an 80 hour strike, was broken up violently by 120 functionaries of the Bolivar section of the National Guard and 60 state police. One union leader was wounded by gunfire and more than 50 people were arrested during the clashes.

VENEZUELA:

THE CAUDILLO IS PISSED AT HIS FOLLOWERS:

True to the decades old convergence of South American "caudillismo" with both fascism and leftism the would-be dictator of Venezuela, Chavez, has seen fit to denounce some of his more enthusiastic followers who have the illusion that his revolution is a real revolution. Here's a little news item that shows must how closely Chavez is following in the footsteps of Juan Peron...

Chavez Says Activists May Trigger Backfire Against `Revolution'
By Matthew Walter
Feb. 28 (Bloomberg) -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez criticized activists who occupied the archbishop's palace in Caracas and held protests in front of a private television network in the name of his Bolivarian revolution, saying the acts may lead to violence.

Chavez said social activist Lina Ron, who led a group of about 20 Chavez supporters in yesterday's occupation of the archbishop's palace, acted irresponsibly.

``Lina Ron, I adore her, but I have to criticize her, because this is a big display of a lack of discipline,'' Chavez said in comments broadcast by state television. ``What it leads you to believe is that these groups, which say they are revolutionary, have been infiltrated, so that through these actions they can erase the government's successes, and cause violent reactions.''

The ``anarchist'' groups that claim to be part of his political movement are overshadowing progress being made by the government in eliminating food shortages and improving healthcare, Chavez said.

Since voters rejected the president's proposal to rewrite the constitution in December, handing him his first electoral defeat in nine years, he has focused on fixing problems that affect his poor base of supporters.

The president said that last night's protest at Globovision was ``risky,'' saying it could cause the same kind of damage that the ``ultra-left'' in Chile did to President Salvador Allende in 1973, when he was overthrown in a bloody coup.

``Some of these so-called Bolivarian circles, nobody knows what their plan is,'' Chavez said. ``I've met with some of them, and I was very concerned. They seem more like anarchistic groups.''
To contact the reporter on this story: Matthew Walter in Caracas at mwalter4@bloomberg.net .

So remember kiddies..."Eff ve do not haf discipline eet vill be anarchy. Za revolution must haf discipline or it vill be anarchy. Seig Heil. Unt eef I am overthrown zen all hope has perished because ve must have zee leader principle.

MORE MATTERS BLOGISH:

Molly forgot a few things in her last post (too much catnip on a Saturday night). One that should be added to the 'Best of the Blogs' section is a repost on Pierre Ducasse's blog Ecodema titled 'Workplace Representation for All is a Human Right'. this is a reprint from a previous article by Roy J. Adams. Molly's flirtation with social democracy is over 30 years in the past when she was perhaps the most consistent writer for The Commonwealth, the Saskatchewan NDP paper. Her present anarchism is little different from what she believed then EXCEPT that she believes that the state cannot create the conditions for democracy, freedom, equality, etc.. What she presently believes is that the role of the state is to "stand aside" and create the "playing field" for truly popular initiatives. Molly sees the need for a "flanking action" within the parliamentary system, but she knows that this action is not anything related to the creation of real socialism. It can merely "clear the field". This is where Molly disagrees with her comrade, Larry Gambone, about events in Venezuela. The creation of real "peoples' power" in that location essentially depends upon either the stupidity or the inefficiency of the new managerial ruling class represented by Chavez vis-a-vis intelligence and efficiency on the part of the popular movements. Also even more importantly proper scepticism as to the new rulers. I simply don't see any of that there in any great manifestation. It will be there in 10 or 20 years but not now.

But back to Canada in 2007. One of our local MPs, Pat Martin, has expressed the opinion that the NDP is in some sort of "crisis" (I don't know if I agree with him because Green Party "votes" in opinion polls are very much of a "blip"), and that it should respond with "imaginative policy" (here I do agree with him, and I can think of no better source than the section of the party represented by Pierre Ducasse.). Howzabout the word "socialism" actually comes to mean something once more rather than a "fuzzword" for conservative commentators ?

Oh yes, one more thing "blogish" (not exactly but I want to be brief), I'd like to draw people's attention to a recent article on the Anarckismo site. It's titled "Fundamentalism, Nationalism and Militarism in Turkey". It's produced by some of our Turkish anarchist comrades, and it gives a corrective viewpoint to the tendency of too many anarchists to equate Third World nationalism with anything libertarian. Have a look.

Molly