Major ideological division in the IST

[JoePolitix]

(One for the far left nerds/those with an interest in far left orientation to the Venezuelan Revolution)

The New Zealand branch of the SWP's International Socialist Tendency has just released a statement highlighting the internal divisions between the SWP and its international affiliates over the nature of the Venezuelan revolution, as well as concerns about the privaleged position of the SWP within the IST's decision making.

Here's the crux of the matter:

At present, there seem to be real differences between IST affiliates over the nature of what is happening in Venezuela. At one end of the IST spectrum, Socialist Worker-New Zealand see Chavez & Co as being at the centre of the most important "revolution in the revolution" since the Bolsheviks proclaimed "All power to the Soviets" in 1917 Russia. At the other end of the IST spectrum, the Venezuelan revolution was a "non-topic" in the official discussion bulletins of the British Socialist Workers Party in the lead-up to their national conference in January 2007.

They further add:

In Venezuela, for the first time since Lenin's Bolsheviks, we are seeing a mass movement well on the way towards establishing socialism within the borders of a whole country. The front line of the epochal war between capitalism and socialism is now in Venezuela.

Read all about it:

http://unityaotearoa.blogspot.com/2007/05/may-day-statement-by-central-committee.html

 

[lewislewis]

I don't know much about the far-left but I can see Venezuelan socialism as practiced by Chavez is far too nationalistic to comply with SWP-style doctrine.

 

[mk12]

with an interest in far left orientation to the Venezuelan Revolution

It's a fucking obsession with you. I bet you have a Che Guevara t-shirt, don't you?

 

[JoePolitix]

It's a fucking obsession with you. I bet you have a Che Guevara t-shirt, don't you?

I don't actually. I bet you have a Bakhunin t shirt stashed away at the back of your closet don't you (considering that you are a crypto-Bakhuninist masquerading [not very well I hesitate to add] as a Marxist)?

Don't think I don't know your game Matt

 

[mk12]

 

[JoePolitix]

Filthy turncoat and traitor

This is where Mk12's true allegiance lies

 

[mk12]

I prefer Marx's beard.

 

[JoePolitix]

I prefer Marx's beard.

Liar

 

[mk12]

Ok, I prefer Kropotkin's really

 

[In Bloom]

I always preferred the Malatesta look, personally.

 

[JoePolitix]

I always preferred the Malatesta look, personally.

Anarchists have historically been an ugly bunch. Whereas Marxists have tended to be at the cutting edge of style:

 

[Groucho]

Malatesta has the best name.

There has been a fair analysis of the revolution in the revolution in Venezuela. Is it an actual socialist revolution - the transformation of society from capitalism to socialism ousting the capitalist class, but by peaceful means? Or is it a popular movement backing a reformist Government which aims to gradually improve the lot of the poor using oil revenue, whilst encouraging grass roots organisations to challenge the state bureaucracy and tofend off military coups? I think it is the latter. Chavez is part of an ongoing process that is opening up the possibilities of popular power, but there will be a showdown ultimately.

There have been debates within the SWP with some calling Chavez a Bonapartist (certainly not the majority position). The vast majority apply critical support to Chavez whilst recognising that socialist transformation will necessitate a grass roots workers uprising. Whether the 'revolution' within Venezuela will create the conditions for a socialist revolution, or be snuffed out from within or from without is all still to play out.

 

[junius]

If Groucho's got his finger on the pulse, the Chris Harman is in the minority.

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=10538

Somehow it is difficult to imagine there is ant debate within the ranks of the SWP. This only takes place at central committee level.

 

[Groucho]

My reading of Harman's article is that it is in keeping with the position I described. He starts by describing the shift to the left as being pushed through by a popular movement, he then explains the problems in relying on change from above and argues that only a workers revolution from below could bring about socialism.

 

[junius]

My reading of Harman's article is that it is in keeping with the position I described. He starts by describing the shift to the left as being pushed through by a popular movement, he then explains the problems in relying on change from above and argues that only a workers revolution from below could bring about socialism.

It's curious. Almost as soon as Groucho claims there is a debate in the SWP, he seeks to deny that Harman sees the danger of bonapartism in Chavez. Groucho is now really saying there is no debate in the SWP.

Who, then, represents the 'Chavez as bonapartist' wing? Clearly SW-NZ thinks it permeates the leading bodies of the SWP.

 

[JoePolitix]

It's curious. Almost as soon as Groucho claims there is a debate in the SWP, he seeks to deny that Harman sees the danger of bonapartism in Chavez. Groucho is now really saying there is no debate in the SWP.

Who, then, represents the 'Chavez as bonapartist' wing? Clearly SW-NZ thinks it permeates the leading bodies of the SWP.

A split seems very likely. The SW NZ have a far more postive appraisal of the Venezuelan government than the UK SWP and they want to devote a large amount of their time campiagning in solidarity. This is incompatable with the SWP approach.

Personally I find myself somewhere in between the two factions on the dispute - I imagine you Junius lean more towards the SWP UK on this one?

 

[junius]

A split seems very likely. The SW NZ have a far more postive appraisal of the Venezuelan government than the UK SWP and they want to devote a large amount of their time campiagning in solidarity. This is incompatable with the SWP approach.

Personally I find myself somewhere in between the two factions on the dispute - I imagine you Junius lean more towards the SWP UK on this one?

Not sure. Don't rule out 'Chavez bonapartism', but still trying to acquaint myself with the details of Venezuelan politics. What seems clear is that their is a political process taking place that would have seemed unreal five years ago.

The biggest danger seems to be that the Venezualan left advance is so streets ahead of anywhere else that either it will be crushed or that isolation will rerun the sad story of 'socialism in one country'.

 

[JoePolitix]

Not sure. Don't rule out 'Chavez bonapartism', but still trying to acquaint myself with the details of Venezuelan politics. What seems clear is that their is a political process taking place that would have seemed unreal five years ago.

The biggest danger seems to be that the Venezualan left advance is so streets ahead of anywhere else that either it will be crushed or that isolation will rerun the sad story of 'socialism in one country'.

I think that there is a strong enough desire for change in countries like Agentina and Bolivia aswell as powerful grassroots orgnisations in those countries to go down the same path as Venezuela. The major difference is that those countries are significantly poorer and are trapped in the neo-liberal vice that Venezuela has been able to free itself from by using its oil wealth.

This is why the success of the Venezuelan led efforts for regional integration (ALBA) and to build an alternative to the IMF (Bank of the South) are of critical importance to Latin America and the Bolivarian Revolution. See:

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=2285

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/A9912111-2F84-46E8-AF39-5FFD33332E29.htm

 

[mk12]

My reading of Harman's article is that it is in keeping with the position I described. He starts by describing the shift to the left as being pushed through by a popular movement, he then explains the problems in relying on change from above and argues that only a workers revolution from below could bring about socialism.

Spot on analysis there I think.

 

[JoePolitix]

Spot on analysis there I think.

Not so much analysis as ahistorical abstraction. WFT is the "workers revolution from below"? When did that happen and how did it go?

Sub-Bakuninite idealist drivel.

 

[mk12]

WFT is the "workers revolution from below"?

 

[JoePolitix]

My thoughts precisely - an ahistorical Hal Draperiod joke.

 

[mk12]

We need strongmen to lead us!

 

[JoePolitix]

We need strongmen to lead us!

A catagorisation error on your part Mk12. The choice is between concreate analysis or genuflexion to an idealised norm. Being a petit bourgeois philistine you choose the latter.

 

[mk12]

What is wrong with Harman's analysis (if Groucho's interpretation of it is correct?)?

 

[JoePolitix]

Idealism or Marxism?

What is wrong with Harman's analysis (if Groucho's interpretation of it is correct?)?

http://www.marxsite.com/bustelofrom below.htm

There, that saved me alot of bother.

 

[JoePolitix]

If you're pushed for time, or just a lazy git then this just about somes it up:

The idea of "socialism from below," Callinicos says, "requires us to confront and overthrow the existing state and replacing it with a radically different form of state power." But so does the idea of the Kingdom of God on earth. The problem is not describing the ideal forms but discovering in this vale of tears the actual social processes of which those ideas are a reified expression.

The "ideal" form of the proletarian state is quite thoroughly explained in the Marxist classics: the Paris Commune form of state, a state which, from its inception, is already in the process of withering away, i.e., where the functions of social organization and control which became concentrated in a body standing above society (because of the class division in society) returning increasingly to society as a whole, because what is now being "controlled" by the state is not the majority, but a minority.

What experience has shown, however, is that the pure form of such a state has proven to not yet be possible in any country where a successful anticapitalist revolution has taken place, nor is it easy to anticipate a successful revolution where a pure form of this state would be possible under current circumstances.

The only case where it is likely that the form of the state after a successful revolution is going to be one of a "pure" Paris Commune or Soviet type is that of nearly simultaneous revolutions in the main imperialist centers.

Rejection of "impure" forms of a workers state is thus tantamount to rejection of all currently possible revolutions and --carried out logically to the end-- it carries the danger of embracing a messianic vision of white euro-north american revolution.

 

[mk12]

While it is true to say that "the pure form of such a state has proven to not yet be possible in any country where a successful anticapitalist revolution has taken place", it is also wrong to say that a 'revolution' where a powerful President is elected via bourgeois democracy is a form of 'workers state', regardless of how 'deformed' or 'impure' it is. That's not to say that the Chavez era hasn't brought gains for people in Venezuela. Or that there is currently a process going on in Venezuela which shouldn't be supported. It's just ridiculous to claim what is happening in Venezuela is something that it is not. I don't think it can be compared to the Paris Commune, for example.

 

[JoePolitix]

While it is true to say that "the pure form of such a state has proven to not yet be possible in any country where a successful anticapitalist revolution has taken place", it is also wrong to say that a 'revolution' where a powerful President is elected via bourgeois democracy is a form of 'workers state', regardless of how 'deformed' or 'impure' it is. That's not to say that the Chavez era hasn't brought gains for people in Venezuela. Or that there is currently a process going on in Venezuela which shouldn't be supported. It's just ridiculous to claim what is happening in Venezuela is something that it is not. I don't think it can be compared to the Paris Commune, for example.

It might suprise you to know that I agree with most of this. I can only assume you're trying to humor me?

I agree that what's happening in Venezuela shouldn't be idealised but I also think it should be assessed on its own merits and not against an idealised norm. All this talk of "socialism from below", "the third camp" etc is profoundly unhelpful.

 

[mk12]

"Socialism from below" simply means workers' own organs of power being formed, and starting to dominate society. This has happened in revolutions in Paris 1871, Russia 1917, Germany 1918, Spain 1936, Hungary 1956 etc etc. It's not an abstract principle. It's just something that revolutionaries have learnt from previous experience. Do you think Harman is wrong to say that socialism can't come about through decree from a President?