Doug H writes:
On Oct 29, 2006, at 8:50 AM, Louis Proyect wrote:
In my own view, Venezuela is in the first act of its social drama.
Taking a snapshot right now and saying "This is Venezuela" would be a
mistake. There is a long way to go and let's let history draw the
final conclusions.
This is a really important point...
=======================
Yes, it is. Relations between the advanced capitalist countries led by the
US and the developing economies in Latin America and elsewhere seem to be at
the same kind of historical crossroads that capitalists were with their own
working classes in the period leading up to WW II, when it was unclear
whether the latter would develop in a revolutionary or reformist direction.
You had the ruling class split at the top between right-wingers who favoured
a continuation of the prevailing methods of control resting on coercion and
social liberals, later described as "Keynesians", who favoured reform of the
social order based on recognition of the trade unions and economic and
political concessions which would serve to both dampen discontent and
fortuitously expand the market.
At the bottom, the labour and socialist movement was split between
revolutionaries who sought to overthrow capitalism and reformists who sought
a deal with the liberal wing of the bourgeoisie to build the welfare state.
Probably the largest part of the movement oscillated towards one or the
other pole based on changing circumstances in their own countries and
internationally.
That great historical contest was resolved in favour of the reformists in
both classes because the resources were available to permit a modest
resdistribution. If they hadn't been available, the class war between
capitalists at the top favouring repression and revolutionaries at the
bottom wanting to abolish capitalism would have spread beyond Russia,
Germany, Italy, Spain, and China and engulfed Britain and the US, the most
developed capitalist nations where the decisive battles had to be fought.
Presently, as Yoshie noted in relation to Nepal and Venezuela, the opponents
of the present world order "emphasize democracy and participation, appear to
favor a mixed economy even more than the Sandinistas, and favor foreign
investment provided it is in their nation's interest." She describes them as
"today's revolutionaries", which is what Chavez and Prachanda, the Nepalese
guerrilla leader, both see as their objective, but yesterday's
revolutionaries would have likened them more to their social democratic
rivals who perceived they could gradually and peacefully replace capitalism
with a planned socialist economy.
Probably they are closest to those left-wing socialist leaders who found
themselves pulled one way then the other, towards reform or revolution,
depending on a) the will and ability of the propertied classes to grant
concessions and b) the combativity and endurance of their masses.
So indeed "there is a long way to go and history will draw the final
conclusions", with reference above all to these two variables. Today's
self-described revolutionaries and reformists can only speculate, as
previous generations did, on how these factors will play out and in which
direction they will force them to go.
