Works councils rear their heads in Venezuela

[butchersapron]

"Everyday I become more convinced, there is no doubt in my mind, and as many intellectuals have said, that it is necessary to transcend capitalism. But capitalism can’t be transcended from within capitalism itself, but through socialism, true socialism, with equality and justice."

What does this mean? What does Chavez mean by it? And what do you understand by it? Do you agree with him? If not, why not?

 

[JoePolitix]

"What does this mean?"

Capitalism = bad

socialism = good

"What does Chavez mean by it?"

I Chavez am the devil incarnate. I will dupe the masses, usurp them and then crush them. I drink the blood of anarchist virgins and jerk off over pictures of J.V Stalin. Long live the state! Long live the totalitarian state! I’m a class colaborationist authoritarian bastard etc….

"And what do you understand by it?"

See above

"Do you agree with him?"

Yup

"If not, why not?"

NA

 

[butchersapron]

Ta. I appreciate that.

 

[Sorry.]

My original point was that combining worker self-management with central planning was a correct policy to be followed in a democratic socialist society. I believe Alcasa, Venepal and other such ventures are embryonic forms of socialism in practice. One of the personnel at Alcasa is quoted in bbc report;

"Marivit Lopez speaks enthusiastically of pressing ahead with what she calls "revolutionary co-management"; part of "the transition to a new system of production"."

In any case I see socialism as a journey rather than an idealised norm. The Bolivarian revolutionaries talk about moving into a ‘socialism of the 21st century’. It’s a new venture, a fresh start from the 20th century bureaucratic socialisms of social democracy and Stalinism. It’s a fresh start from the old tired, dogmatic approaches to building socialism. That’s what is so exiting about it.

What do you think derailed these other journies toward socialism? (just briefly, obviously this could be a much longer conversation)

(and I'm happy enough to take Chavez's profession of socialism at face value)

Lets recap. Originally you insinuated that worker co-management was a centralised swindling trick designed to bind workers to the state.

I didn't and I don't think that to be the case. The point I was making was to consider where control of the process lay, and to question the readyness of the workers to defend and advance these gains without the backing of the state.

I disputed this analysis and argued that the impetus for this development came from grassroots class struggle. It was after months of such struggle in Venepal that Chavez decreed the expropriation of that mill under joint management of the workers' and the state.

This was the pioneer case in Venezuela’s co-management project which has now spread to other factories and, judging from Chavez’s mayday speech and increased class militancy in the work places, looks set to spread even more.

But would any of it have been achieved without the approval of the state? Could any of it be achieved without the state's ongoing indulgence? I'm simply asking where the real power behind this process is. Rather important I think in light of what has happened to other socialist journies, all of which were led by people of as much conviction and determination as Chavez.

It’s also very cynical to phrase this ‘forcing Chavez’s hands’. Why not ask yourself the inverse: why was it not the bosses that succeeded in ‘forcing Chavez’s hands’? Why didn’t Chavez use the police or the army to crush the factory occupations as most of his latin American counterparts would have done?

I'm interested, in the context of failed socialist revolutions in the past and why they failed, in the extent to which the Bolivarian movement and the Venezuelan people are prepared to act in defiance of or in advance of the MVR leadership. Furthermore I want to know who is currently in the driving seat of this revolutionary process. That Chavez has his allies among the poor and his enemies among old economic and political elite I don't dispute. I don't think that makes him immune from the same analysis with which you'd challenge anyone else.

nb. if you use the small "reply" button at the bottom right corner of this post, instead of the large "reply" button at the bottom left of the screen, you can quote my post rather than using c+p and quote marks.

 

[Divisive Cotton]

Actually, I wish he wouldn't use the S word.... it's sooooo twentieth century... I liked the Bolvarian Revolution bit.... nice ring to it....

 

[ska invita]

Lets hope he keeps his head...

Pat Robertson Calls For Assassination of Hugo Chavez

Christian televangelist Pat Robertson has called for the assassination of Venezuela's democratically-elected president Hugo Chavez. Robertson made the comment on his tv program The 700 Club.

His comments were recorded by the media advocacy group MediaMatters. "I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war," Robertson said. "And I don't think any oil shipments will stop. But this man is a terrific danger and the United ... This is in our sphere of influence, so we can't let this happen." His comments came on the same day that Hugo Chavez traveled to Cuba to meet with Fidel Castro.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/23/1321209

You gotta love these Texan Christians - so much for "Thou shall not kill", never mind the rule of law...