INTERNATIONAL POLITICS-VENEZUELA:

A FIFTH INTERNATIONAL????:

A little while ago the Peron-wannabe dictator of Venezuela offered up to the world his idea of a "Fifth International" whereby everyone who opposed to the US Empire would unite in some sort of new socialist international. it has been many decades since the last 'International' was founded. The anarchosyndicalist international, a collection of unions, traces its origin back to 1923. The Second International of social democratic parties still exists in a bureaucratic never-never land. This international is nothing more than a collection of social democratic political parties. Maybe they are good, or maybe they are bad, but that is what they are.

Chavez of Venezuela, true to his own megalomania, however proposes yet another "international". In terms of "voting rights" one wonders is his good friends in the North Korean government will be allowed to "vote" as per their communist party membership and if starving peasants will be allowed to vote-secretly. Similarly one wonders how the votes of Chavez's good friend Iran will be allocated. Will any votes be allocated to people who have a different vision of Islam and who are in opposition to the present regime or will the voting be according to government appointees in Iran.

Let's lay it out as plainly as we can. Z Communications is very much an attempt to recover libertarian initiatives for traditional leftism. This traditional leftism is what has led Z Communications to be apologists for the regime in Venezuela. All their great intellectual power, which I will admit, floundered on a moral shoal of apologetics for dictatorship. If I were to sum it up I would say that that the theory of the "coordinator class" that Parecon has borrowed without acknowledgement from other socialists and anarchists hasn't yet penetrated to the core of their practical proposals. Whether it is "critical support" ala a Trotskyist formula for voting for the Democratic party or tailing third world dictatorships the people around Z-Net have made their choices very clear., via much more morally degenerate choices ala Venezuela.

Quite frankly I am not annoyed with the opinions of Z-Net. As a Canadian I have been very much acquainted with left social democratic proposals, and I can easily situate same in my own political culture, as "radical" as this may seem in the USA. What I am appalled by is the attempt, perhaps only possible in the USA, to say that a "vague leftism" is equivalent to anarchism. To be fair the people around Z-Net have never styled themselves as as 'anarchists", and thus it is not unexpected that they, as good vague leftists, would think that the proposals of the would-be dictator of Venezuela deserve notice. The way that Z-net gravitates to this dictatorial proposal is the same way that left social democrats would gravitate to such a thing in my experience.

In my opinion this sort of thing is both futile and immoral, especial;y as it tends to bury real socialism under a layer of bureaucratic socialist "bullshit". OK, judge for yourself. Here's the item from Z-Net. As an ex-social democrat I am very aware of what social democracy is, both in its good and its bad aspects. To say the least this sort of thing is one of the bad aspects of the left wing of social democracy. But, I'll let you judge for yourself. Here's the article from Z-Net.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Fifth International?!

By Michael Albert

To be a contender, "21st Century Socialist" vision needs elaboration, advocacy, and a program. To improve focus and increase power, worldwide anti-capitalist organizations, projects, and movements need shared coherence and mutual solidarity.

To fulfill these needs, Venezuela's President Chavez recently announced to widespread support and also some critical response that a gathering in Caracas this April would establish a new International. But what might this new International look like? What might it accomplish? How might people, such as those reading this essay, and particularly people in grassroots movements around the world, relate to it?

Not Our Predecessor's

A new International is an excellent venue for debate but has no practical component, or, worse, is a gathering place for big egos who mostly preen at long, aimless meetings(Uh- can I say that bureaucratic "socialists" in power are a far greater threat than "egos", whatever the American point of view-Molly )Or suppose a new International intelligently addresses programs and ideas, but is a vehicle for a small group to issue instructions from above. Or suppose a new International's focus, structure, or operational procedures are conceptually rooted in past flawed macho, racist, authoritarian or otherwise oppressive practices( leaving aside the way that the "left" has al;ways tried to govern other peoples' lives of course which is not an "ism"-Molly).

Even if it grew large, such a new International, built with the intellectual bricks, social mortar, programmatic inclinations, and personal habits and ideas of the old world, would not likely help us attain a new world. Liberation will not stand well on old foundations. We must plant the seeds of the future, as best we can, in our present endeavors.

Most politically sophisticated people of today's movements would not sign up with an old-style International. Even considering the relatively few eager souls who would sign up, most would not remain inspired for long. Predictably, support would not grow strong enough to win major change.

We can't win a new world without attaining wide and deep support, and we can't attract wide and deep support offering structures and methods embodying the core ills of the past.

Thus, lesson one, already familiar to most: If a new International marches to the beat of past drumming, no matter what its members might want, and no matter how courageously its members might seek their worthy dreams, the support they gain will be too limited and their efforts will be too compromised by past destructive residues to generate desirable 21st century outcomes.

The Focus of a New International Issue Focus

The "subject matter" of a new international should and will inevitably address all concerns which go into and are part of developing and sustaining a liberated society and world but there is no reason to think all sensible and caring people would or should agree about all such matters.

Much will have to be worked out in practice. Much will differ from country to country. Maybe there is a best position - but we don't yet know it. Maybe most people think they know a best position, but a few people differ, and perhaps the few will prove right later. This indicates that regarding unity we ought to settle only on a minimalist but profoundly important set of principles and commitments that would characterize a new International.

What minimal commitments would a new International need to adopt to do its job well? Those who agree with essential inviolable commitments, could join. Those who don't agree with them, might want to join, but couldn't.

Few would doubt that a new International should be centrally concerned with economics, gender and kinship, culture and community, politics, international relations, and ecology(anything else you want to throw into the stew-Molly).

Further, however, there is no need for, and we have learned in recent decades there is also no point trying to elevate any one of these focuses above the rest. They are all centrally important and powerfully entwined. Thus, it should be the case that a group in a new International might in some country, or at some time, or for some purpose, be primarily focused on one or another of these focuses, but to be part of the new International it would also have to acknowledge that their priority was just one among many, and that other priorities should inform their work as well as be informed by their work.

Surely, at least these six areas of struggle must be elevated by any organization trying to create a new world because:

(a) all these six central domains will critically affect the character of a new world,

(b) each of these six domains is capable of manifesting influences that would subvert efforts to reach a new world, and

(c) the constituencies most involved in and affects by each of these six domains would be intensely alienated if their prime concerns were relegated to secondary importance. But what minimalist political focus and commitment might a new International have regarding each of theses six broad areas of concern? What would it initially need to universally agree about each area to gain the wherewithal to really change that area and legitimately appeal to and empower constituencies most concerned about that area?

Some possibilities for general agreement are that:
economic production, consumption, and allocation should be classless

- which of course includes equitable access for all to quality and accessible education, health care and the requisites of health like food, water, and sanitation, housing, meaningful and dignified work, and the instruments and conditions of personal fulfillment gender/kinship, sexual, and family relations should not privilege by age, sexual preference, or gender any one group above others - which of course includes ending all forms of oppression of women, providing daycare, recreation, health care, etc.culture and community relations among races, ethnic groups, religions, and other cultural communities should protect the rights and identity of each community up to equally respecting those of all other communities as well

- which of course includes an end to racist, ethnocentric, and otherwise bigoted structures as well as securing the prosperity and rights of indigenous people political decision making, adjudication of disputes and implementation of shared programs should deliver people's power in ways that do not elevate any one sector or constituency to power above others

- which of course includes participation and justice for all international trade, communication, and other interactions should attain and protect peace and justice while dismantling all vestiges of colonialism and imperialism

- which of course includes canceling the debt of nations of the global south and reconstructing international norms and relations to move toward an equitable and just community of equally endowed nations ecological choices should not only be sustainable, but should care for the environment in accord with our highest aspirations for ourselves and our world

- which of course includes climate justice and energy renovation.

Which, "of course"!, is about one of the best statements of vague leftism in a North American context that I have ever seen-Molly. Whether this right or wrong or, more importantly, the basis for a political movement I will leave to the readers' judgement.
Is there room for difference and debate in what exactly each of the above points means, much less about more specific details? Of course there is. But having room for debate is good in an International that means to be a massive bloc of diverse projects each of which retain their own history and agenda. The International becomes the greatest sum of all its parts. It embodies differences as a source of strength. It avoids the temptation to become just a coalition attached only to universally agreed but least common denominator claims, or to homogenize all views into one narrow pattern.

Underlying Values

What about underlying values? Surely a new International would elevate solidarity as part of its ethos. An International is, after all, about aligning worldwide movements and projects into mutual aid and collective benefit.

A new International should also certainly elevate diversity as a core value, both due to the obvious ecological necessity of doing so, and due to the observation that in any undertaking minority views can become majority, or what is thought to be crazy today can lead to what is brilliant tomorrow. (And most importantly vice versa without disguise-Molly)

A new International will no doubt also adopt equity as one of its core values, even if it retains contradictory "certainties" about just what constitutes equity. More, over time, presumably members will reach increased clarity about just what equity entails and requires. One possibility is, for example, that it means every person who can work gets a share of income based on his or her duration, intensity, and onerousness of socially valued labor, but not based on property, or power, or even output, while those who can't work get special needs addressed and, beyond that, average income.Peace with justice and ecological sustainability and wisdom would surely also be guiding values. Serious movements would have no problems with that.

Finally a new International will of course have to have an attitude about decisions, participation, and power. At a minimum a new International would presumably commit to the value called "democracy." For myself, however, I would hope it would reach further to a more inspiring conception of "people's power," or "participatory democracy," or "self management." And that it will seriously assess the kinds of structural changes and innovations essential to ensure informed, confident, participation by all citizens in political, economic, and social life - perhaps also including, for example, changes in the way labor is divided and carried out, the way education is conceived and implemented, and of course the way preferences are debated, explored, resolved, and implemented.

Perhaps that will prove possible, too!

At any rate, given its place and time of origin, suppose a new International adopts a name like Participatory Socialist International (PSI), where "participatory" connotes that it isn't our forebears' International, but is really new. Suppose also that it commits to prioritizing at least economics, gender, race, power, peace, and ecology, and commits to solidarity, diversity, equity, peace with justice, ecological wisdom, and people's power or self management. These commitments would certainly go a long way toward providing a new foundation for a new International.

But what about all the many clashing views that various members would hold beyond the minimal views they would universally share?

How might different positions exist in a new International in mutual respect? (Uh, can I suggest that they won't and can't-Molly)

How might they engage in mutual careful and creative consideration?

Currents in a New International

How can a new International be true to its core commitments, yet also a vehicle for constant growth and development?

How can a new International prioritize shared core views, yet also practice diversity and prioritize innovation?

One possibility is to include and celebrate(Molly warning-leftist buzzword expressed here) "currents" that serve as vehicles for contending views. There might be a current composed of various member organizations, projects, and/or movements who share a particular contested economic goal (such as participatory economics or market socialism, etc.), or a certain contested strategic orientation (such as electoralism or nonviolence, etc.). The International's various currents would not be seen as a weakness undermining unity but as a strength warding off sectarianism and guaranteeing constant growth.

The respectfully contending positions would all be part of the International, together interactively exploring their disagreements in hopes of reaching new insights. To establish a congenial, productive context, currents would take for granted that the intentions of other currents were good, that differences were about substance and not motive( oh yeah, I'm sure that a "Bolibougeois" making money from the present government of Venezuela would be "agreeable" to anything but fashion statements from others outside of the country ), and that they were subject to substantive debate which would be a serious part of the whole project.

The International would thus welcome different currents affording each ample visibility and means to engage with all others to try to advance new insights bearing on policy and program. Currents would not have hidden agendas(as if any government doesn't have such-Molly) or think everyone else is a fool because only their own views have merit.

Rather, currents would take for granted that even ideas they think odd, strange, or counterproductive, might prove useful in time, so that all views held inside the International should be respected and substantively explored without defensiveness and without doubting the motives of other International members. In short, in this formulation, as long as any particular current accepted the basic tenets of the International and operated in accord with its norms and methods, respectful dissent would be considered a strength preventing knee-jerk agreement and constantly pushing the envelope of beliefs toward new insights. In debates about policy and program, for example, currents would always be heard.

Minority positions would, to the extent possible, be given space not only to argue, but if they don't prevail, to continue developing their views and trying to establish their merit or to discover their inadequacies. The idea of a political or programmatic line that everyone follows would be foreign to the culture and process of this type new International.

Members and Decisions in a New International

What permits one to be in the new International? Well, the International would presumably include movements, parties, organizations, and even projects - but a strong possibility is that individuals would not join as at-large members, belonging instead only by way of their group affiliations. What kind of group could belong? I would think any group that convinced some agreed percentage - let's say, hypothetically, 75% - of the existing membership that it sincerely accepted the defining norms of the International could belong.

This could be political parties, movements, organizations, or even projects - so, for example, it could be the PSUV from Venezuela, or the Landless Workers Movement (MST) from Brazil, or the Rosa Luxembourg foundation from Germany, or even media organizations like ZCom, say, from the U.S. Members, employees, staff, etc., of each new International member organization would in turn gain membership in the International by virtue of their collective organizational membership. Individuals who want to be members of the International, therefore, but who have no member group that they belong too, would have to hook up with one.

An at-large membership wouldn't exist, at least in this conception. The benefit of this approach would be that the legitimacy of a person as a member need not be assessed by the international - but only by the member organization of the international that the person is part of.

There would be no "paper" members and no mass of unattached and therefore essentially unknown members.

What kinds of decisions might an International make? Every member group would have its own agenda for its own separate operations which would be inviolable. At the same time, each member group would presumably be strongly urged to make its own operations consistent with the norm, practices, and shared programmatic agendas of the International. There would be solidarity among member organizations, but, regarding their separate operations, there would also be autonomy. The International would have shared program, policies, norms, and rules to continually decide on, as well as having to decide on gatherings to hold, campaigns to support or undertake, and perhaps much else.

How might such decisions be made? Membership groups would have wildly different sizes, no doubt - so in the future there could be a group with a handful of members in the International, and another group with thousands, or even millions of members. But since the International's decisions would not bind those groups other than regarding the collective International agenda, a good way to arrive at decisions might be serious discussion and exploration, followed by polls of the whole International membership to see peoples' leanings, followed by refinements of proposals to seek even greater support and to allow dissidents from minority viewpoints to make their case, culminating in final votes of the membership seeking to convey self managing participatory influence to all parties.

The little group with five participants could have at most their five votes unless they were more heavily affected by some decision than others were. A big group with ten thousand or a million participants could have at most that number of votes - again, unless they were more affected by some choice - but member votes would not be delivered in bulk, by group, but rather one by one, each being counted individually.

Online, this is no longer a technically daunting matter. Are there other possibilities? Of course. This is just one hypothetical, but desirable, possibility.

Possible Program in a New International

What might a new International do? A new International might call for international events and days of dissent. It might support campaigns for existing struggles by member organizations. It might support member organizations against repression. It might undertake widespread debates and campaigns to advance understanding and mutual knowledge. More ambitiously, an International might also decide on campaigns and projects of its own, financed via its membership. It might settle, for example, on a massive international focus on immigration, on ending a war, on shortening the work week all over the planet, and/or on averting climatic catastrophe. There might then be materials to prepare, education to convey, activist campaigns to carry out, boycotts to initiate and sustain, support for local efforts to engender, and even efforts to provide material aid and participants for events occurring across borders.

All such general programs, would be up to member organizations to decide how to relate to, yet there would be considerable collective momentum for each member organization to participate and contribute as best it can. Thus, program decided by the International would either be about the International's own actions or would be very strong advisories to members, or perhaps calls to them and to the broader world - not legally binding, so to speak, but powerful and effective nonetheless. Finally, regarding program, clearly one reason to have an International is to help organizations, movements, and projects escape single issue loneliness by becoming part of a larger process encompassing diverse focuses and united by agreements on various major shared endeavors.

Dream, or Reality?

The above is one possible rough picture. It isn't complete and it isn't unique. It could adapt, bend, mature, enlarge, or be refined in all manner of ways, whether before April in preparation, or after April, as an International develops. Is it only a dream that worldwide parties, movements, organizations, and projects could operate with intellectual and programmatic respect and mutual aid, with deep diversity and sharp focus, with strong solidarity and equally strong autonomy, with profound coherence and commitment and also with material and social equity and overarching self management? Yes, today this is a dream, or a wish, or a hope. But tomorrow, and literally, this April, it could become a reality. Wouldn't that be a huge and historic step forward?

@@@@@@@@@@@@

Whatever the utopian planning of the above it is undercut by the apparent agreement of the author that it can be initiated by an authoritarian government ie that of Venezuela, and carried through with the asgreement of both them and their friends. To say the least this is a rather ornate example of "leftist illusion". It is particularily stunning coming from one of those who has taken up the idea of a "managerial class" (they call it the "coordinator class") and who has, at least in this instance decided to abandon all discussion of the influence of said class in favour of a "united front" of absolutely irreconsilable parts. To say the least no real socialist should be willing to touch such a thing with aten foot pole. It's a frecipe for statist manipulation if I ever have seen one. Albert, of course, is of another opinion, and he has had the vast majority of the space here. What I can say is that flocking to this sort of scam would be an equal betrayal of anarchism as that when anarchists became Communits after the so-called success of the Russuian Revolution. I doubt that the consequences would be as brutal to the ordinary people as communist mass murder, but the consequences to anarchism would be equally disasterous.

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR-VENEZUELA:

PROTEST IN CARACAS AGAINST ANTI-WORKER REPRESSION:

The following may be something of 'stale news', but it still bears repeating given the delusions of many on the left about the "socialism" of the regime in power in Venezuela. Molly has mentioned the case of the 'Sidor 14' before on this blog. basically they are some of the many workers in Venezuela who have felt the wrath of the so-called socialist regime for actually thinking that socialism means the interests of the workers rather than that of the state functionaries. Here's the story from the English language section of the Polish anarchist news site Centrum Informacji Anarchistycznej.

ILILILILILILILILILIL

Caracas: Picket in Solidarity with the SIDOR 14 and against the Repression of Social Protests:
Akai47
On July 29, a protest was held outside the main Prosecutor's Office in Caracas. The demonstrators were protesting in defense of the right to social protest. It was a response to growing repression of political protests in Venezuela.

The demo was supported by various groups including human rights organizations as well as socialist, worker and anarchist groups. Activists pointed out at the same time as the government is repressing social protest, the murderers of farmers and trade unions have gone unpunished.

A representative of the Prosecutor's Office of course denied that they repress workers for protesting but claimed there were other reasons. The date of the demonstration was not accidental: early that morning was to be a hearing in the case of the 14 SIDOR workers charged with "misappropriation and restricting the freedom to work", crimes invented by the government in 2005 to restrict the right to strike. The case was postponed until February 2010.

The protesters demanded that all laws which criminalize protest be repealed, that an investigation be made into the killings of unionists, farmers and social activists, that all activists arrested for social protest be released and not be required to report to authorities and that the police stop repressing protest and not be allowed to used teargas or firearms against protesters.

More than 2,200 people, including dozens of labor union representatives, have been indicted on criminal charges stemming from their participation in protests over the last four years.

Venezuela's National Security Law allows as much as 10 years in prison for anyone involved in demonstrations within "security zones" ringing government offices, oil installations, military garrisons and other public facilities. Another law punishes people who "prevent the production, importation, gathering, transportation, distribution or marketing of essential goods" with six to 10 years in prison. "Restricting the freedom to work" is also a crime, just right for strikebreakers.
More (in Spanish)

http://venezuela-centro.axxs.org/5983

(in Polish)

http://cia.bzzz.net/caracas_pikieta_solidarnosciowa_z_14_pracownikami_si...

Photos from the protest

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR-VENEZUELA:

WORKERS ASSASSINATED IN VENEZUELA:

The following originates with the Venezuelan anarchist magazine El Libertario, and comes Molly's way via the A-Infos website. To say the least such events raise disturbing questions about who is behind the murders. Perhaps equally disturbing is the Venezuelan state's concentration on repression of labour activists, also mentioned in the article below, while seemingly devoting few resources to investigating the murders in question. Read on...

LLLLLLLLLLLL

Campaign against the assassination of workers in Venezuela:

Enough killings and repression of workers in struggle! ---- The anarchist org. El Libertario has joined this campaign and we’re trying to divulge this initiative in an attempt to confront the hired killers that are taking the lives of labor activists in this country. ---- This past May 5 union leader Argenis Vasquez, organizing secretary in the union at Toyota’s plant in Cumana, was gunned down by thugs as he left his house. This assassination occurred just after a month-long strike demanding improvements. The murdered worker was a leader of the protest and key in confrontations with the company and the management. It all looks like the unofficial “answer” by a company unable to impose its will on the strikers.

However, not even three months have passed since the deaths of workers Pedro Suarez and Javier Marcano in Anzoategui, in the eastern part of the country, during a violent repression by the regional police ordered by Governor Tarek William Saab as they tried to evict workers from that other Japanese transnational Mitsubishi Motors. The workers were occupying the factory as protest against the firing of 135 workers and for their demands.

These killings come on top of the horrible assassination of the three main leaders of the Union Nacional de Trabajadores –UNT (National Workers Union) in the state of Aragua, also at the hand of thugs who gunned them down this past November 27 in the vicinity of La Encrucijada. They were Richard Gallego, president of UNT’s regional section, Luis Hernandez, union leader at Pepsi-Cola and Carlos Requena, union delegate at Produvisa, all members of political party Unidad Socialista de Izquierda –USI (Left Socialist Union). These labor leaders were at the head of the union in a state with one of the largest rates of labor conflict in the country, leading the struggle in solidarity with workers who occupied the Colombian transnational Lacteos Alpina due to threats of lock-down and facing harsh repression by the regional police (then under the direction of Governor Didalco Bolivar).

There have been six workers killed during the struggle in barely five months. In most cases we’re talking about a policy of “Columbization” of labor conflicts: pay assassins to kill labor leaders and thus intimidate the working class and break up their organizations. Let’s not forget that workers at Sanitarios de Maracai (in Aragua) have been the target of various threats and selective prosecutions throughout the struggle, that the workers at Mitsubishi Motors complained that a car in which some workers were traveling was shot up when they were engaged in an information campaign about the filming of the killing of the two [Mitsubishi] workers, and that in June 2008 Gloria Palomino, labor leader at fan manufacturer FM (Fundimeca) in Carabobo, was wounded by a bullet in her leg during a drive by shooting while she was at the front of an occupation at the gates of the company demanding the enforcement of an order to rehire.

These killings (and attempts) of workers in struggle seem to define a method of conflict “resolution” in the midst of reigning impunity, since to date there has not been anybody politically or intellectually responsible for the killings and attempts found, tried or condemned. On the contrary, there is a process to criminalize worker’s protest, there are close to one hundred workers on trial or under orders to appear in front of tribunals for having taken part in protests.

Therefore the organizations and persons whose signatures appear below strongly condemn this situation, we loudly raise our voice in repudiation of the assassination of workers in struggle, by thugs paid by the bosses as well as by the official security forces, we protest against the rampant impunity and demand prosecution and exemplary punishment for those politically and intellectually responsible.

We are convinced that if these crimes go unpunished we slide dangerously towards a national situation of outlawing and silencing by force the worker’s legitimate protest and struggle.

Enough deaths of workers for fighting for their rights!

We demand of all the State powers the prosecution and punishment of those responsible for these crimes, to that end we propose the formation of an Independent Investigative Commission, made up of workers organizations, human rights organizations and relatives of the victims, with access to all the information and freedom to act on a real investigation of the whole problem!

We demand a stop to the prosecution of the workers on trial or under orders to present themselves to the tribunals for struggling for their rights!

We call for the widest coordination and mobilization of workers, students and human rights organizations, truly democratic intellectuals and artists to unite our efforts in a large national and international campaign against these crimes!

INITIAL SIGNATURES

Asamblea de Trabajadores de la Toyota 15/5, Cumaná; Carlos Farías,Secretario de Prensa y Propaganda de SINTRATOYOTA; Sindicato de Trabajadores de la NESTLÉ, Sindicato Bolivariano de Trabajadores de CATIVEN; Sindicato Único de Trabajadores y Trabajadoras de MANPA; Sindicato de Trabajadores de SANITARIOS MARACAY; Sindicato de Trabajadores de GENERAL MILLS de Venezuela (DIABLITOS UNDER WOOD); Sindicato de Trabajadores Bolivarianos Inversiones SEABOOCS C.A.; Sindicato Único de Trabajadores de la Universidad Central de Venezuela (SUTRA-UCV); Sindicato de Obreros del Comedor Estudiantil de la Universidad Central de Venezuela (SOCE-UCV); Sindicato Nacional de Trabajadores de la UCV (SINATRA-UCV); Emilio Bastida y Marcos Guzmán, Coordinadores Regionales de la UNION NACIONAL DE TRABAJADORES (UNT) de Aragua; Orlando Chirino, Coordinador Nacional de la UNT y por la Corriente Clasista, Unitaria, Revolucionaria y Autónoma (CCURA); Sindicato Profesional de Insecticidas y Conexos del estado Aragua; José Bodas, Secretario General del FEDEPETROL (Anzoátegui); Frank Hernández del Sindicato de Trabajadores y Trabajadoras de la PEPSICOLA; Cristhian Pereira, secretario del Sindicato de Trabajadores de CHRYLER AUTOMOTRIZ; Stalin Pérez Borges, Coordinador Nacional de la UNT; Tendencia Clasista Revolucionaria (TCR), SIDOR (Guayana); Centro de Estudiantes de Sociología de la Universidad Central de Venezuela (UCV); Consejeros Estudiantiles de la Escuela de Sociología de la Universidad Central de Venezuela; Frente Unido de Trabajadores y Trabajadoras por la Vida, la Salud y el Empleo (FUTRAVISEM); Sismely Carrillo, Secretario General de SINUTRASUFAR; Juan Caracas, Secretario de Seguridad y Vigilancia de SIMBOTRAS BAN HEEL; Lisandro Noguera, Secretario de Finanzas de SINTRACORSUCA; Héctor Ríos, Secretario de SINTRASELVA; José Salcedo, Secretario de Organización de SINUTRAFORJARAGUA; Álvaro Ramos, Secretario de SINUTRAFORJARAGUA; Roberto Bolívar, Secretario de Reclamos de SINTRAEMPROQUI; Héctor Bolívar y Andrés Arriaza, Secretarios del Sindicato Único de LA GIRALDA; Pedro Garrido. Secretario de Organización del Sindicato de ALUCENCA; David Hernández, Secretario General del Sindicato VASOS VENEZOLANOS; José Contreras, Secretario de Actas del Sindicato de VASOS SELVA; Luis Jiménez. Secretario de Organización de SUNTRACALIPEIMA; Luis Hernández. Secretario de Organización de TONOROGAS; Rafael Figueroa, Secretario de SINTRASOBIA; Simón Mollejón, Secretario General de SINCROSOMA, Rafael Correa, Vocal de SINCROSOMA; Luis Torrealba, Delegado de Trabajadores de CATIVEN (Anzoátegui); Periódico PROCESO; Asociación Latinoamericana de Economistas Marxistas (ALEM); Patricio Silva, Coordinador Regional de Misión Sucre, estado Aragua; Radio Comunitaria ECOS 93.9 FM (Mérida), Colectivo Editor de El Libertario; ... (more signatures)Send your signature to v.contrarepresionobrera@yahoo.com with your name, the name of your organization (labor, student, political, human rights, community, artist, intellectual etc.) if you belong to any, your city and country.

For more info - in Spanish, English & other languages - about Venezuelan situation, see http://www.nodo50.org/ellibertario.

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR-VENEZUELA:

SENTENCES FOR THE SIDOR 14:

This is another item that has been all over the "anarcho-net". I have chosen to reprint the version in the Polish anarchism news service Centrum Informacji Anarchistczej . The original source is the Venezuelan anarchist magazine El Libertario.

The following is about yet another case of the so-called socialist government of Venezuela versus the workers of that country. To say the least this comes as no surprise to Molly, as she is very doubtful of the "good intentions" of a new ruling class such as the 'Boli Bourgeoise' (as they are called in Venezuela) whatever their ideological pronouncements. Self interest tends to weigh very heavy in the scale. The situation described below will undoubtedly reoccur time after time in the future, barring the end of the Peronist Chavez regime. The word "Peronist" is important in the previous sentence. Without going off the ideological deep end in describing the present regime in Venezuela as "fascist" it is very important to note that this regime stands in a long line of dirigiste populist movements in Latin America, of which the Peronist regime in Argentina was the original model, regimes that use the rhetoric of "popular power" to actually undermine any real attempt at such.

In the end the "class struggle" in such countries as Peron's Argentina and Chavez's Venezuela comes down to a struggle between the ideals that such regimes evoke and the self interest of the new ruling class. History has said that the new ruling class usually wins such encounters, but this is not inevitable. Good luck to the Venezuelan anarchists who try and push the ideas of liberty and equality beyond what the leftists in government will allow.

@@@@@@@@@@

Venezuela: El Libertario warns of possible sentence to the 14 SIDOR

After taking part in a demonstration for lack of job security in 2006, 14 workers of contractor “Transportes Camila de SIDOR” could be sentenced to 5 to 10 years in jail.

In 05 September 2006 a group of workers and union leaders staged a protest against the carrier Camila, a contractor to SIDOR (Siderurgic of the Orinoco), the principal steel core business located in Puerto Ordaz, Bolivar state, in Venezuela. The workers were protesting the failure to pay wages, and maintain health and safety, as well as the lack of tools to accomplish their work. The protest was endorsed by Readers of the “Sindicato Único de Trabajadores Siderúrgicos y Similares" (Sutiss, the SIDOR`s union), stopping the equipment whose breakdowns and lack of maintenance represented a threat to the integrity of the workers, following the safety procedures in the labor standards. The employers turned to the regional authorities, getting the Public Ministry to issue an arrest warrant against three syndical leaders and a group of workers by the National Guard, which resulted in a protest by workers of the steel mill.

In this way were arrested Leonel Grisette, a member of the Commission who represents 50% workers and 50% of employers on Sutiss; Juan Valor, Secretary of Press and Propaganda, and Jhoel Hernández, Secretary of Culture and Sports of that union. The charges against them were qualified misappropriation and restricting the freedom to work. A trial started for acts defined as crimes after the reform of the Venezuelan Penal Code (Articles 358 to 363) in 2005, and the promulgation of the Organic Law of National Security (Article 56) in 2002: both approved during the Bolivarian government and harmful to the right to strike. The three union leaders, along with 11 workers, 14 of Sidor, have been subjected since 2006 to court procedures, while the trial will end on Wednesday April 29 2009, with the possibility of a sentence of between 5 and 10 years in prison.

Remember that SIDOR was nationalized by President Hugo Chávez in April 2008, following the revocation of the contract with the Argentina transnational Techint. However, a year later, estate control has not meant an improvement in the quality of life of the workers. Speaking to “El Libertario”, Leonel Grisette said "It is not true that outsourcing has been eliminated and working conditions of the flexible workers are such that they cause accidents in 4 to 1 ratio with respect to the other workers. Collective bargaining is frozen, and despite the absence of technical safety workers as required by law, we are forced to work under irregular conditions". Moreover, nationalization has neutralized the current board of Sutiss, which has abandoned the 14 workers on trial, so they had to pay out of their own pockets the fees for their counsel, which add up to 100 million bolivars (over $ 44,000).

Human rights and labor organizations have been denouncing the criminalization of protest in Venezuela, as well as the enactment of laws to restrict the legal right to strike, such as the requirements to present themselves in court and the threat of application of the Code Criminal Law and Security of the Nation. For anarchists the legal architecture of repression is part of the government offensive to end the belligerent autonomy of social organizations, with the excuse of fighting coups d'etat and under the rhetorical mask of Bolivarian Socialism, whose consequences are suffered by the people. Although the syndical organizations split and biased within the inter-bourgeois confrontation that has occurred in the country in recent years- do not keep statistics on cases similar to the 14 SIDOR, workers in the states of Carabobo, Aragua, Miranda and Tachira have been subject to presenting themselves in the courts. In this sense statements by the peasant movement Jirajara, located in the state of Yaracuy have counted 103 cases of peasants who after participating in protests and land occupations, have been referred to the courts. For the union activists of the 14 of SIDOR, these procedures are designed to decapitate the militant labor movement, so the possible penalty of 5 or 10 years imprisonment is a warning to other activists and advocates for labor and social rights.

Rights of the people.

Historically the libertarians have argued that the people will not feel better if the stick who beats them bears the name of stick e alert the base organizations and collectives of Venezuela and of the world about the potential sentence against the 14 SIDOR. As anarchists members of El Libertario we stand in solidarity with the Venezuelan workers struggling for their rights, we support militant, honest and autonomous unions and will continue to denounce the contradictions of an authoritarian government at the service of the interests of globalized capitalism in the struggle for a self-managed and revolutionary grass-roots alternative preferable to the false polarization which exists in our country.

@@@@@@@@@@

Molly knows very intuitively about where to throw her support in situations such as these. Not that the present dictator of Venezuela equals Stalin in either power or insanity, though there is litttle doubt that Chavez is insane what with his illusions/reality of power. That is the whole point. Efforts at self management will rise and fall depending on who the caudillo favours "this week". Who knows what he will say even seven days from now. Maybe he will do a Khadaffi and change his allegiance overnight. It is actually possible that the leftist authoritarian state of Venezuela "switches sides" without any public debate before hand. Maybe this may be all to the good. A so-called 'democratic" vote in Venezuela is automatically a vote for a certain FACTION OF THE MILITARY, and it is automatically a farce. Does this have any relevance up here in Canada ? Maybe yes. Maybe no.

If nothing else this situation should give at least anarchists pause about "supporting" half assed Marxist regimes in the future, as if such "support" makes, any difference whatsoever. To be honest it actually has an effect-domestically. The more you are willing to lie about other countries, and glorify them the less people in our own country should trust you. If you are apologetic for dictatorship "A" in one part of the world, then it is "inevitable" that you will be in favour of dictatorship in other situations.

El Libertario

ellibertario@nodo50.orgwww.nodo50.org/ellibertario

(in Spanish, English & others languages)

Caracas, April 27 2009.

INTERNATIONAL POLITICS/INTERNATIONAL ANARCHIST MOVEMENT-VENEZUELA:

HUGO CHAVEZ VERSUS THE REVOLUTION:

Recently a quite lengthy (too lengthy to reprint in full on this blog) article has been making the rounds of the 'anarchonet'. The article in question 'Venezuela, The Revolution Delayed: 10 years of Hugo Chavez's Rule' has been reprinted, amongst other places, on the A-Infos website(see HERE and HERE). You can also read it, along with other English translations from the Spanish, in the English language section of the Venezuelan anarchist publication El Libertario. The article, in fact, is an interview with members of the El Libertario collective by a French anarchist 'Charles Reeve'.

Venezuela is, of course, a darling of the present left, and the leftist attitude towards said state is even more uncritical, if that is possible, than their views of the Castroite dictatorship. The latter, of course, is reaching its end soon, and "analyses" of its successes and failings will be soon left to the political autopsy technicians. The regime of Chavez, however, appears, at least on the surface, to still have some wind in its sails- though its longevity is undoubtedly very dependent on the world price of oil.

I encourage readers to take in the full article. To those unfamiliar with previous "autopsies" of failed "socialist" states it may be quite revealing. The Venezuelan comrades provide a guide to the topsy turvy world of state socialism in power, and how such simple concepts as "cooperative" have a meaning that becomes totally different when the rising ruling class of the state bureaucrats lay their hands on them. This, of course, is old news to those of us who are old enough to have seen the Leninist states in full power and to have witnesses the old leftist reaction to them as well.

As I said, the article is far too long to reproduce here, but the following excerpts will hopefully give the flavour of it.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

CHAVEZ AS CAUDILLO:

Miguel (M.) – There is a lot of talk nowadays of a left turn in Latin America. There have indeed been several governments elected who belong to traditional left tendencies. For us, there are two main currents. On the one hand are governments brought to power after great social movements,such as is the case in Bolivia and Brazil, countries with a long history of struggle.

Apart from these – and more particularly, in Venezuela - the so-called “left” governments have not come to power off the back of social movements or grassroots struggles. They belong to a cultural set more linked to Latin American populism of the caudillo variety. It is clear in our eyes that all such governments meet the needs of a situation of political crisis. It is impossible to understand the rise of Chavismo without looking back to the caracazo of 1989. These riots in Caracas left thousands dead. The pact which had existed between the various forces in politics was thus broken and society faced a crisis of governability. This concern was most acute within the ruling class itself. All the more so given that these riots opened up a cycle of struggle in Venezuelan society, with the emergence of grassroots organisations independent of the old left political parties. Some people called this “a new civil society”,particularly as regards the student movement and even the movements in the poor barrios. For example, the Human Rights group, with which I work, came about in these years. The same went for environmentalist groups and women’s groups. So people who identified with leftist ideas escaped the control of the parties.

For its part the workers’ movement mostly remained dominated by social democracy (and the Acción Democrática party), with a few fringes controlled by groups of the authoritarian Marxist left. During the 90s there was real turmoil in Venezuelan society, with popular struggles organised in opposition to A. Perez, the social-democrat president responsible for the 1989 massacres. This turmoil led to huge changes in society. Three years later, in 1992, there was an attempted military coup: a recurrent event in the history of this country, where the army has often intervened in political life. Despite their failure, within a few years these putschist army men, in particular Chávez, had managed to recuperate the whole of this popular resistance movement. Chávez’s appeal in part came from the fact that he was able to make himself seem in tune with the popular movements of the 90s.

That is how this powerful resistance movement fell behind this figure and became part of a new institutional arrangement.This was a dialectical integration: well known activists in these movements were also on the look-out for some institutional role: in their eyes, indispensable for carrying out their plans.

This “civil society” was new, having existed for barely a decade and had carved out very little space of its own in society. It had little experience in terms of concrete social engagement and anti-authoritarian organising. So now, rather surprisingly, we find the cadres of this new“civil society” in power with Chávez. The blank cheque they have given in part results from this inexperience and lack of a concrete project. Here we find the imprint of the country’s cultural make-up. Even if revolutions define themselves by breaking with such paradigms, we have to say that Chávez himself is repeating the whole caudillo, statist and militarist tradition long established in Venezuela. He has breathed fresh life into this culture.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

'Chavismo” and the neo-liberal model

I. - Chavismo has another characteristic beside its links with the traditional left. The régime’s project is tied into the current international situation, which supports a global drive for capitalist rule. I will explain: nowadays it is easier to implement the plans of neo-liberal capitalism in a country with a left-wing government which uses populist slogans without provoking real mobilisation on the part of workers. For us, that is Chavismo’s principal role. Of course, I am not saying that all the people and groups who support Chávez are conscious of this. I repeat, Chavismo does not have a homogeneous supporter base. There are those who think the régime is doing the best it can to improve the lot of the people... there are even thous who are convinced that today we are experiencing a unique opportunity to “build socialism”. We, for our part, think that this neo-liberal role can be seen in the régime’s policies on oil and trade, and indeed in its whole economic agenda. This manipulative populist rhetoric covers up the real agenda of clearing the way for the implementation of the neo-liberal model, to a greater extent than ever before.

C.R. - Chavismo as the spearhead of neo-liberal policies: quite an original take on things! From this standpoint, can we see the rise - or the creation - of a new private sector emerging from the Chávez years: one based on the new networks of patronage and corruption?

I. - But obviously! In Venezuela such networks have always been integral to the functioning of society. Initially the Chavistas tried to break with this set-up. But in reality there were but minor changes in the structures of bureaucracy, and corruption and patronage continued. There are few studies of this issue. But at an empirical level we can state that it is plain to see in the oil and financial sectors where the government has introduced its plans. In the co-operative sector, for example, cliques have identifiably appropriated projects to build centres of economic power from which they can make personal gains.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

CHAVEZ AND THE COOPERATIVES:

M. - Of course, we have a totally different idea of co-operatives. For us,a co-operative is an initiative which comes from below. For the Chavistas, on the contrary, enterprises in what they now call the “social economy sector” must operate in the form of state-aided co-operatives. Every day people start organising co-operatives - people who are totally foreign to the spirit and practice of co-operativism... because it is the quickest way of getting contracts and state credit! In many industries the law obliges the state to give priority of tenders to “co-operatives” above private enterprises. So many malign people have started creating co-operatives in order to win contracts with government bodies. That as the case with the public roads enterprise you mentioned. A private enterprise was thus transformed inter a co-operative to win the tender, and at a stroke the workers lost all their rights and bonuses. They now have three-month renewable contracts, such that the “co-operativist” (in reality, the new name for the boss!) has no duties towards them. Thanks to this lie, after a few months it could be said that there were 200,000 co-operatives... All this in order to make propaganda showing that society has changed. But it is all artificial, created by decree.

I. - I would add that, after the oil workers’ strike, the government learned that it had to control the world of work. First it explained that the state would create a new form of organisation based on solidarity and where all workers would benefit from the same privileges. The co-operatives! At a stroke the government broke the services contracts it had with private companies (particularly for cleaning), which by law had to pay workers ’social bonuses’. The workers were laid off and forced to seek temporary work with these co-operatives now dealing with the state.They lost the bonuses and rights which they had previously (in theory at least) had. Moreover, many of these co-operatives disappeared as soon as they were created. So we are witnessing, as your friend is right to emphasise, the casualisation of work.

INTERNATIONAL ANARCHIST MOVEMENT:

STATEMENT OF THE OCL ON THE SITUATION IN BOLIVIA:

The Organización Comunista Libertaria de Chile is a Chilean anarchist communist group. In addition to activities in their own country they are concerned with the broader context of Latin America. This is their statement on the present situation in Bolivia where, as reported earlier on this blog, there is violent right wing resistance against the left wing reforms of the Morales government.

The Brazilian Federacão Anarquista Gáucha has produced a much longer and more detailed analysis of the situation in Bolivia from an anarchist viewpoint. You can read this statement over at the Porkupine Blog.

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

Statement on the current political situation in Bolivia:
by the Chilean Organización Comunista Libertaria

Given the current political situation facing the Bolivian popular movement, our Party wishes to make the following statement, and to provide all its internationalist solidarity to serve their just cause:

Latin America is at a crossroads. Like what is happening in Venezuela, imperialism - in collusion with the Bolivian bourgeoisie - is trying to destabilize the process of political and economic reforms led by President Evo Morales Ayma, a process that is disrupting the political scene in a continent which until not so long ago was "pacified" by the use of military coups.

This process is undoubtedly a contradictory one and at the moment it is increasingly clear to the masses that there are no half measures that do not mean sacrificing the interests of all the people and the workers to the oligarchy that is seeking to regain its lost ground with assassinations and coup attempts. Concern about the consequences that may arise from the current political crisis in Bolivia has attracted the presidents of the member states of the Union of South American Nations, who on the one hand, have to condemn destabilizing events, but who on the other have called on the Bolivian government to seek an understanding with the Bolivian Half Moon oligarchy. The magnitude of the fascist rebellion, the apparent intervention of U.S. imperialism, as well as the overwhelming popular support for the government simply go to confirm the absurdity of such an understanding.

At this time, with the Movimiento al Socialismo and President Morales having won themselves some time, there is no alternative but for them to assert themselves strongly among the mobilized masses and that section of the military that is loyal to the government, in order to widen the scope of the "October Agenda", which is an expression of the revolutionary process that the people have been building for many years on a growing wave of accumulated forces. On the other hand, the vacillating policy of seeking an understanding with fascism has clear implications, eloquently demonstrated by the Chilean experience of "Unidad Popular". This experience not only highlights the limits of the bourgeois democratic framework, it also demonstrates that there is no possibility of dialogue with the putschists: it simply enable the bourgeoisie and imperialism to align their forces to make the decisive blow, which would lead the Bolivian popular movement into butchery of untold proportions. That is why it is so urgent to take forceful measures against the paramilitary groups operating in the "Half Moon" and against any coup-inclined, middle- and high-ranking officers in Bolivian Armed Forces.

But beyond the possibilities offered by reformism, it has become essential for there to be unity among those sectors of society of a more revolutionary bent so that a common path that goes beyond the narrow framework of bourgeois legality can be mapped out. Indeed, there is an urgent need for the wise Bolivian popular movement to expand the revolutionary process without hesitation, to win over soldiers, the working class, anti-putschist and socialist NCOs and officers to the side of the people, to develop the embryos of popular power and immediately take on the tasks of defending working-class interests, to come up with a revolutionary program that will bring socialism, once and for all, to the heart of Latin America.

Moreover, we would like President Chavez - with the same force with which he condemned the murder of 30 Bolivian peasants at the hands of Bolivian "Cambas" (lowlanders) in the province of Pando - to condemn and prosecute those responsible for the treacherous murder earlier this month of four combatants of the Bolivarian Forces of Liberation (FBL) on the border with Colombia at the hands of "pitiyanqui" troops from the Bolivarian State's security forces; four revolutionaries who joined 300 farmers, two comrades of the Coordinadora Simón Bolívar, a Tupamaro councilor and a member of the Colectivo Alexis Vive from the January 23 Parish in Caracas, killed by paramilitary gangs operating with impunity under the noses of the government and in full complicity with the imperialists, the "escualidos" and sectors of the Bolibourgeoisie(the name given to that section of business that is actually prospering under the pseudo-socialism of Chavez in Venezuela-Molly).

Lastly, the imperative need to push ahead with the revolutionary tasks is not only a guarantee for the happiness of our people, but the only way to defend the lives of and win freedom for millions of human beings.

Arriba los y las que luchan!

Venceremos!
Organización Comunista Libertaria de Chile

INTERNATIONAL POLITICS:

BOLIVIA IN CRISIS:

One month after his 67% approval rating in a recall referendum the left wing government of Bolivia, headed by Eva Morales, is facing another crisis. Right wing secessionist s based in the richer eastern provinces of the country have taken to the streets, hoping to win by riot what they couldn't win by ballot. A report of what is happening in Bolivia can be found at THIS BBC LINK.The government of Bolivia has accused that of the USA os instigating the riots and expelled the American ambassador. Washington has replied in kind. Venezuela's Chavez government has replied in solidarity by expelling the US ambassador from their country and recalling their diplomatic staff from the USA.

The School of the Americas Watch organization has launched a phone-in campaign to the US government demanding that they stop their interference in the internal affairs of South American countries. Here is their request.

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

Urgent: Support Democracy in Bolivia and Latin America‏:
We are writing with grave concern about an emerging conflict in South America´s poorest nation, Bolivia and we need you to take immediate action. Bolivia is facing a critical moment in which the survival of a new era of hope is gravely threatened. After suffering decades of military dictatorships followed by years of economic dictatorship, Bolivia heralded in a new moment of dignity with the election of its first indigenous president, Evo Morales. However, just one month after a recall referendum gave Morales 67% of the vote, Bolivia's secessionist movement has unleashed unprecedented violence throughout the country. After three days of riots, 8 people have died, several government institutions have been destroyed and Bolivia´s gas pipeline has suffered millions of dollars in damage. OAS Secretary General José Miguel Insulza has called for the violent actions of opposition groups to end.

Citing involvement with the opposition movement, Bolivia´s president Morales declared US Ambassador to Bolivia, Phillip Goldberg, persona non grata and asked him to leave the country. Among Ambassador Goldberg´s closest friends are Croatian businessmen in the city of Santa Cruz who lead the city´s powerful separatist movement. Washington responded by asking Bolivia´s ambassador to return to his country.

South America´s presidents have united their voices in declaring support for Bolivia´s democracy and Evo Morales. Yesterday Venezuela in solidarity with Bolivia asked the US Ambassador to leave the country and recalled their ambassador from the United States. Venezuela is also citing US involvement in recent destabilization attempts in Venezuela. Unfortunately, as we know too well form our campaign to close the SOA/WHINSEC, the US has a long history of US intervention in the region.

Morales has called for restraint by the military, a markedly different response from that of Bolivia´s military dictatorships. SOA Watch founder, Fr. Roy Bourgeois was one of the many recipients of the torture and random detention which was commonplace under the dictatorship of General Hugo Banzer, an SOA graduate. Thousands of Bolivians were tortured and hundreds disappeared under the following Garcia Meza dictatorship leading military command were SOA graduates. Last year President Morales announced his decision that Bolivian troops would no longer train at the SOA/WHINSEC. Venezuela was the first to make this announcement in 2004, and since then a total of 5 countries have followed step.

We urge you to take immediate action. Please call the White House with the message, please stop interfering in Bolivia and other Latin American Democracies. Please call the capital switch board and ask for your Senators and House Members and ask them to immediately investigate if the White House is trying to destabilize the democracies of Bolivia and Venezuela.

White House to reach the President (202) 456-1414

Capitol Switchboard to reach your Senate or House Member (202) 224-3121

In Hope,

April, Mike, Pablo, Pam, Hendrik, Roy, Lisa and Eric

SOA Watch

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.