====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
> > > As for Chavez, I personally know many Venezuelan Libertarian Marxists > who dislike him. One of my best friends is such a disaffected > Venezuelan. He thinks that Chavez is the direct continuation of Latin > American "caudillismo" (longing for a "strong man"), exemplified by > Peron and Vargas. Mingled, as he sees it, with Castrism, due to the > influence of Cuba on the Left-Wing intellegentsia in Latin America and > Cuba's anti-US pedigree. He is keen to point out the corruption and > self-seeking hypocrisy of officials connected with the PSUV. > Anyone with eyes can see there is corruption and self-seeking hypocrisy of officialis connected to the PSUV. This is a seperate question from an assesment of Chavez. The PSUV is a mass party built out of a mass movement that has radicalised. But it contains within it competing tendencies and interests. The power brings with it opportunists, plus there is an open-ended dimension to the Chavista movement - the space driving back the old elite and imperialist domination in the state (which in Venezuela is essential to wealth creation) creates space that can be filled by new forces enriching themselves. This is a real phenomena. It creates a big contradiction for the revolution - it is tied to the weakness of the rank-and-file Its existence does not by itself prove anything about Chavez or the fundamnetal nature of the Bolivarian revolution. After all, in a very different situation, in a revolution that had gone much much further, Lenin headed a party with more than its fair share of "self-seeking hyporctical and corrupt officials". The PSUV is contested, as in fact is the entire country right now. The right have strong orgnaisational weight, but the political initiaitve still does not lie with them (although they can stop and slow implementation of policies). This is to do with the continuing dynamic between Chavez and the ranks - exemplified recently by the electricty sector with the revival of workers' participation. Chavez, at the PSUV congress, tells the delegates (which include no small number of "self-serving corrupt hypocrites) that he knows there is corruption, he knows there are undemocratic practices and manipulation, he knows there are mayors and governors using their positions to fciliate contracts that enricht he private sector. "I know more than you think", he tells the audience and the right-wing look unnerved. He says this practice of contracting out to enricht he private sector, must end, it is no rhte aim of the revolution. This is an *essential* component of the practices of the "self-service corrupt hyprcites". Chavez saying this wont make it happen, but Chavez saying this ties in to the need to organise the militant ranks to end these practices. It is a dangerous situation, because the stronger thes sectors are the higher the demnoralisation and demobilisation. My impression, and it can only be that, is that Alberto Muller Rojas - a dedicated and respected revolutionary - has resigned because of the combination of ill-health and the extreme frustration of these challenges. He has not seen much progress in this battle and is simply too old and ill to continue the fight. But, as understandable as that may be for an elderly man confined to a wheelchair, the struggle is clearly still live. The recent event sint eh electricty sector are onje example, the formation of hte federal governing council, which gives direct power to elected representatives of hte communal councils and social movements, the formation pof hte peasant militia, the ongoing (though still limited) nationalisations of different companies in some key areas, the attempt to transform state industry in Guyana, the march oif tens of thousands of students (a sector the revoluton has struggle to mobilise its support base in) with the students chanting "means of hte procution to the people" - this shows the life in the revolution. Of course, counter-examples could also be pilled up - showing all the massive problems, all the blocks within the revolutionary camp, all the power capital still holds, all the struggles that have been frustred or defeated, all the activists assassination by men on motorbikes... With everything contessted and partial - with power hanging in the balance, with the strength of the oppressed enough to win impotant gains anbd pose much more signficant ones as there for the taking, the situation is highly contradictory. "The old is yet to die and hte new is still being born", as the saying goes in Venezuela. One consequence of this is what led Michael Lebowitz to observe that Venezuela is no place for someone sudfering bipolar disorder. There are exhilirating highs one day and despairing lows the next. This is a natural consequence of the very unfinished struggle for power anmd the contradictions ripping Venezuela apart. > > For my part, I tend to agree with my friend (his whole family lives in > Caracas after all), What, your friend's *WHOLE FAMILY*? I guess that answers the question then. Because there is no way you could find a *whole family* in Caracas or anywhere else in Venezuela, to argue the opposite, to argue that Chavez is a genuine representative of the oppressed seeking to lead a process of revolutioonary transformation towards socialism. Did I mention there were hundreds of thousands of PSUV militants, highly organised and some seven million formal members? > BUT I am nevertheless mightily interested in the > reports by Socialists of the efforts underway to establish self-managing > "cooperatives" and "neighbourhoods" in Venezuela. > The question you need to be asking is, if Chavez is just a caudillo, why is his governmemnt going out of its way to promote and empower self-managing cooperatives across Venezuela? The "socialists" establishing these things are by and large rank-and-file Chavistas and in the PSUV and are supported by Chavez (as well as them being *supportinve of* Chavez ). This is in the communal councils, the communes (which is atempting to have an economic aspect - where by the communes, based on reprsentatives of local communal councils, will directly manage economic operations in their area) and the revivial of the psuh for workers' participation in state industry. (As well as the cooperatives, whicih will the communes will also promote). You want to ask yourself *why* the push from Chavez is to back these thignds up, why legislation passed empowers them formally. To say "I don't like Chavez but I like these initiatves" is to be caught in a contradiction. These initaitves are bound up wioth, enbabled and supported by the Chavezs government. They are built from the bases - they are not imposed from above. But they are certainly *supported* and *enabled* by Chavez's government - inb a contradictory way because there are contradictory forces at work in Chavez's government. The right wing, which still has a lot of weight, don't want these things to succeed. Stuart ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
