Comments on: The Venezuelan Referendum http://dissidentvoice.org/2007/12/1247/ a radical newsletter in the struggle for peace and social justice Sun, 08 Nov 2009 12:31:02 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Laurence Schechtman http://dissidentvoice.org/2007/12/1247/#comment-10398 Laurence Schechtman Fri, 07 Dec 2007 23:57:20 +0000 http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/12/1247/#comment-10398 Dave Watson and I agree. We want "a grassroots revolution with workers taking control of economic decision making through control of the means of production." But the way to do that is to do it; not necessarily all at once, but starting NOW. Increasing the powers and funding of the Communal Councils is an important step because 1) the Councils are a training ground for collective self management which can be applied to the workplace and because 2) many of the Councils already function as a home ground for workers' co-operatives. And that is what is so frustrating about Mr. Chavez' election package. The Communal Council provision, and the other progressive economic measures, would certainly have won if Chavez had not tied them to the growth and centralization of his own power. Not just the elimination of term limits (which didn't have to be an issue for another three or four years), but, probably more important, presidential appointment of local governors in not yet defined new districts. (Which is close to what that great socialist Vladimir Putin has done in Russia.) As for the "joke" about staying in power til 2050, there are certain things one doesn't say in the middle of an election campaign. Chavez gave his enemies a whole armory of ammunition with which to defeat the democratic socialist component of his reforms. And now let's talk about the "tactics" necessary to hold onto present gains. "Baking social and political gains into the constitution" won't impress the next coup plotters, who can only succeed if the working classes become demoralized. And if the electorate is so demoralized that they vote for right wingers, which could happen, they can also quickly vote to change the constitution. The only way to "bake in" workers' power, so that it is more than just rhetorical camoflage for bureaucrats, is to see that every worker has an individual stake in it - through growing material wealth, through direct control of one's environment and workplace, and, not least, through the cultural and spiritual renaissance which always accompanies an eruption of communal power. (Berkeley in the 60's was a small foretaste.) Chavez has promised that he will present his reforms to the electorate one by one. Good for him. Will he start with measures which will directly enhance community and workers' power? That is how we will know whether or not he has learned from last week's lesson. Dave Watson and I agree. We want “a grassroots revolution with workers taking control of economic decision making through control of the means of production.” But the way to do that is to do it; not necessarily all at once, but starting NOW.
Increasing the powers and funding of the Communal Councils is an important step because 1) the Councils are a training ground for collective self management which can be applied to the workplace and because 2) many of the Councils already function as a home ground for workers’ co-operatives.
And that is what is so frustrating about Mr. Chavez’ election package. The Communal Council provision, and the other progressive economic measures, would certainly have won if Chavez had not tied them to the growth and centralization of his own power. Not just the elimination of term limits (which didn’t have to be an issue for another three or four years), but, probably more important, presidential appointment of local governors in not yet defined new districts. (Which is close to what that great socialist Vladimir Putin has done in Russia.) As for the “joke” about staying in power til 2050, there are certain things one doesn’t say in the middle of an election campaign. Chavez gave his enemies a whole armory of ammunition with which to defeat the democratic socialist component of his reforms.
And now let’s talk about the “tactics” necessary to hold onto present gains. “Baking social and political gains into the constitution” won’t impress the next coup plotters, who can only succeed if the working classes become demoralized. And if the electorate is so demoralized that they vote for right wingers, which could happen, they can also quickly vote to change the constitution. The only way to “bake in” workers’ power, so that it is more than just rhetorical camoflage for bureaucrats, is to see that every worker has an individual stake in it – through growing material wealth, through direct control of one’s environment and workplace, and, not least, through the cultural and spiritual renaissance which always accompanies an eruption of communal power. (Berkeley in the 60’s was a small foretaste.)
Chavez has promised that he will present his reforms to the electorate one by one. Good for him. Will he start with measures which will directly enhance community and workers’ power? That is how we will know whether or not he has learned from last week’s lesson.

]]> By: Max Shields http://dissidentvoice.org/2007/12/1247/#comment-10366 Max Shields Thu, 06 Dec 2007 23:46:29 +0000 http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/12/1247/#comment-10366 It is abasolutely essential that oil be very carefully utilized as a means of bankrolling anything in Venezuela. History is replete with countries that have tried to leverage one unsustainable resource to buy their way into a stable and self-suffient economy - nearly all have - Iran (under the Shah) and Uraguay in the early 1950s come to mind, but these are just 2 of many who have gone before (and after) and failed miserably. It has nothing to do with socialism or capitalism. It is the nature of how fundamental economics works. I sense Chavez knows this which is why he is realizes the precariousness of both leading and following - being a true servant learder and letting the grass-roots through deep economic and sustainable change take hold. Let's hope - because TINA is kaputz! It is abasolutely essential that oil be very carefully utilized as a means of bankrolling anything in Venezuela. History is replete with countries that have tried to leverage one unsustainable resource to buy their way into a stable and self-suffient economy – nearly all have – Iran (under the Shah) and Uraguay in the early 1950s come to mind, but these are just 2 of many who have gone before (and after) and failed miserably.

It has nothing to do with socialism or capitalism. It is the nature of how fundamental economics works. I sense Chavez knows this which is why he is realizes the precariousness of both leading and following – being a true servant learder and letting the grass-roots through deep economic and sustainable change take hold. Let’s hope – because TINA is kaputz!

]]> By: Dave Watson http://dissidentvoice.org/2007/12/1247/#comment-10337 Dave Watson Thu, 06 Dec 2007 09:04:31 +0000 http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/12/1247/#comment-10337 We are all agreed, I think, that revolutionary change is a long (not to say permanent) process. Political change may be achievable in a shorter period, but social change is a long term project, unachievable without popular participation. We have to therefore separate the tactical, short term goals, from the long term strategic goals. I feel therefore that Schechtmans’ claim that the defeat is really a victory is a little misplaced. Yes the social revolution will eventually (and hopefully) be a grassroots revolution with workers taking control of economic decision making through control of the means of production and addressing human need not profit. But in the meantime in Venezuela there is a more urgent tactical task. That is to consolidate the gains so far and make it progressively more difficult to reverse these gains with a shift of power. Here have we again a parallel with Nicaragua. When the Sandinista regime lost power (although by a so small margin) the Chamorro government and their US advisors managed to reverse all the gains of the Sandinista revolution (many similar to those gains in Venezuela today but without the economic benefits of oil) in a very short time. The opportune current situation that enables baking into the Constitution so many of the social and political gains of the Bolivarian revolution as possible may not present itself again. The left has total control of the national Assembly and therefore the two thirds majority necessary for passing important legislation such as constitutional change. If the left should lose the next election, it will almost certainly be by a small margin. With the majority of the Bolivarian infrastructure (misiones, poder popular etc) irreversibly written into the constitution the left will have a favourable starting point to build from when they eventually regain power. It is also here that the lifting of the limits on re-election is a tactical attempt to hinder a reversal of the revolutionary process and allow it to deepen. Schechtman falls into the trap of accepting the opposition’s propaganda that Chávez desires to hold power indefinitely (the jibe about staying in power until 2050 was a joke which just the humourless opposition are incapable of understanding, even Fidel Castro doesn’t aim to be in power when he is 96 years old). But Chávez is the glue that holds together the diverse small left wing groupings, at the same time as he represents a bridge to the popular movements who trust him, but not necessarily the those parties in the coalition. He is also a long way to the left in that coalition, and his authority and influence gives the impetus for a continual deepening of the process. In the period before a presidential election, the power vacuum on the left without Chávez could lead to infighting and a total collapse, risking all the gains of the revolutionary process. This is what Chávez and many of his supporters are most concerned with. Yes, it is not an ideal situation to have so much power concentrated in one person. But pragmatic reasoning tells us that in the short time span until the next presidential elections the conditions for a mature sustainable revolutionary process, based on political, social and cultural consciousness are unlikely to be in place. If the choice therefore is between an extra term in office for a popular leader (who up till now has not shown any signs of betraying the principles of the Bolivarian revolution) or giving the election to the opposition on a silver platter and setting the process back by several years, then I think the majority of those truly engaged in supporting the Venezuelan process will opt for the former. Dave Watson We are all agreed, I think, that revolutionary change is a long (not to say permanent) process. Political change may be achievable in a shorter period, but social change is a long term project, unachievable without popular participation.

We have to therefore separate the tactical, short term goals, from the long term strategic goals.
I feel therefore that Schechtmans’ claim that the defeat is really a victory is a little misplaced.

Yes the social revolution will eventually (and hopefully) be a grassroots revolution with workers taking control of economic decision making through control of the means of production and addressing human need not profit. But in the meantime in Venezuela there is a more urgent tactical task. That is to consolidate the gains so far and make it progressively more difficult to reverse these gains with a shift of power.

Here have we again a parallel with Nicaragua. When the Sandinista regime lost power (although by a so small margin) the Chamorro government and their US advisors managed to reverse all the gains of the Sandinista revolution (many similar to those gains in Venezuela today but without the economic benefits of oil) in a very short time.

The opportune current situation that enables baking into the Constitution so many of the social and political gains of the Bolivarian revolution as possible may not present itself again. The left has total control of the national Assembly and therefore the two thirds majority necessary for passing important legislation such as constitutional change.

If the left should lose the next election, it will almost certainly be by a small margin. With the majority of the Bolivarian infrastructure (misiones, poder popular etc) irreversibly written into the constitution the left will have a favourable starting point to build from when they eventually regain power.

It is also here that the lifting of the limits on re-election is a tactical attempt to hinder a reversal of the revolutionary process and allow it to deepen. Schechtman falls into the trap of accepting the opposition’s propaganda that Chávez desires to hold power indefinitely (the jibe about staying in power until 2050 was a joke which just the humourless opposition are incapable of understanding, even Fidel Castro doesn’t aim to be in power when he is 96 years old).
But Chávez is the glue that holds together the diverse small left wing groupings, at the same time as he represents a bridge to the popular movements who trust him, but not necessarily the those parties in the coalition. He is also a long way to the left in that coalition, and his authority and influence gives the impetus for a continual deepening of the process. In the period before a presidential election, the power vacuum on the left without Chávez could lead to infighting and a total collapse, risking all the gains of the revolutionary process.

This is what Chávez and many of his supporters are most concerned with. Yes, it is not an ideal situation to have so much power concentrated in one person. But pragmatic reasoning tells us that in the short time span until the next presidential elections the conditions for a mature sustainable revolutionary process, based on political, social and cultural consciousness are unlikely to be in place.

If the choice therefore is between an extra term in office for a popular leader (who up till now has not shown any signs of betraying the principles of the Bolivarian revolution) or giving the election to the opposition on a silver platter and setting the process back by several years, then I think the majority of those truly engaged in supporting the Venezuelan process will opt for the former.

Dave Watson

]]> By: Max Shields http://dissidentvoice.org/2007/12/1247/#comment-10325 Max Shields Thu, 06 Dec 2007 03:54:14 +0000 http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/12/1247/#comment-10325 Laurence, good points, but I'd have stayed away form the "spanking" stuff. I don't know of another living leader who has helped to make the deep seated changes that Chavez has. But a leader is not enough. You must have many many leaders to have a sustained revolution. Organized complexity - patterned after life itself which is self organizing. Laurence, good points, but I’d have stayed away form the “spanking” stuff. I don’t know of another living leader who has helped to make the deep seated changes that Chavez has. But a leader is not enough. You must have many many leaders to have a sustained revolution.

Organized complexity – patterned after life itself which is self organizing.

]]> By: Laurence Schechtman http://dissidentvoice.org/2007/12/1247/#comment-10322 Laurence Schechtman Thu, 06 Dec 2007 01:58:49 +0000 http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/12/1247/#comment-10322 The defeat of Chavez's constitutional amendments is actually a VICTORY for socialist progress in Venezuela, because now the movement will be forced to rely on its own diverse grass roots. Venezuela's economic problems call out for socialist solutions. Food price inflation and shortages can be overcome by speeding up the turn-over of non-productive land to farmers' co-operatives, and by expropriating corporations which hoard food to deliberately drive up prices and destabilize the government. And talk of 21 Century Socialism is mostly rhetorical until workers in each factory and office can vote for their own version of workers' control. If Chavez had concentrated the referendum on socialist democracy he would have won overwhelmingly. But instead he muddied the waters of socialist progress with plans for a possible lifetime presidency, even speculating about remaining in office til 2050 for God's sake; and with presidential appointment of local officials (creeping Putinism). Has there ever been a better example of leading with your political chin? Considering the fact that his current term continues until 2013, raising the issue of term limits now, before dealing with economic empowerment, is a sure sign that his ego has outrun his political judgement. If people had been allowed to vote for issues separately, they could have approved of democratic socialist reforms and deep sixed the Bonapartism. (Socialism yes, immortality no?) Presenting the issues all together on a "you're with us or against us" basis is an insult to the intelligence of the electorate and a short circuiting of communal debate. We can be deeply grateful to Chavez for mobilizing people and using oil revenues to lift millions out of poverty. But power and adulation are hard to handle. Now that Chavez has received his necessary spanking I think he will have enough integrity to rely more on the intelligence of Venezuela's working classes. Have we learned nothing from the history of Russia and China? Real socialism cannot be handed down from on high. It has to be won from below. The defeat of Chavez’s constitutional amendments is actually a VICTORY for socialist progress in Venezuela, because now the movement will be forced to rely on its own diverse grass roots.
Venezuela’s economic problems call out for socialist solutions. Food price inflation and shortages can be overcome by speeding up the turn-over of non-productive land to farmers’ co-operatives, and by expropriating corporations which hoard food to deliberately drive up prices and destabilize the government. And talk of 21 Century Socialism is mostly rhetorical until workers in each factory and office can vote for their own version of workers’ control.
If Chavez had concentrated the referendum on socialist democracy he would have won overwhelmingly. But instead he muddied the waters of socialist progress with plans for a possible lifetime presidency, even speculating about remaining in office til 2050 for God’s sake; and with presidential appointment of local officials (creeping Putinism). Has there ever been a better example of leading with your political chin? Considering the fact that his current term continues until 2013, raising the issue of term limits now, before dealing with economic empowerment, is a sure sign that his ego has outrun his political judgement. If people had been allowed to vote for issues separately, they could have approved of democratic socialist reforms and deep sixed the Bonapartism. (Socialism yes, immortality no?) Presenting the issues all together on a “you’re with us or against us” basis is an insult to the intelligence of the electorate and a short circuiting of communal debate.
We can be deeply grateful to Chavez for mobilizing people and using oil revenues to lift millions out of poverty. But power and adulation are hard to handle. Now that Chavez has received his necessary spanking I think he will have enough integrity to rely more on the intelligence of Venezuela’s working classes. Have we learned nothing from the history of Russia and China? Real socialism cannot be handed down from on high. It has to be won from below.

]]> By: Dave Watson http://dissidentvoice.org/2007/12/1247/#comment-10241 Dave Watson Wed, 05 Dec 2007 08:10:16 +0000 http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/12/1247/#comment-10241 The Washington Post, a week before the referendum, revealed that USAID had been financing these student organisations for some time. The Bush administration is always on the look out for new actors to keep the pressure up on Venezuela. There is a pattern here very reminicent of the efforts to destabalise Nicaragua in the 1980s, nd many of the same people who were discredited by the Iran-Contra affair are now comfortably in place again working in Bush's section for regime change in Venezuela. Nothing is left to coincidence. Dave Watson The Washington Post, a week before the referendum, revealed that USAID had been financing these student organisations for some time.

The Bush administration is always on the look out for new actors to keep the pressure up on Venezuela.

There is a pattern here very reminicent of the efforts to destabalise Nicaragua in the 1980s, nd many of the same people who were discredited by the Iran-Contra affair are now comfortably in place again working in Bush’s section for regime change in Venezuela.
Nothing is left to coincidence.

Dave Watson

]]> By: Ormond Otvos http://dissidentvoice.org/2007/12/1247/#comment-10178 Ormond Otvos Tue, 04 Dec 2007 18:33:43 +0000 http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/12/1247/#comment-10178 Excellent article. Could have used examples of which reforms would likely be voted in, and which were not as well received. It looks as if polling has been poisoned for a while. Were the students who protested the rich ones, worried that poor people might actually outwork them at school? Excellent article. Could have used examples of which reforms would likely be voted in, and which were not as well received. It looks as if polling has been poisoned for a while. Were the students who protested the rich ones, worried that poor people might actually outwork them at school?

]]>