Re: AUT: The "National Strike" in Venezuela

[Scott Hamilton <s_h_hamilton@xxxxxxxxx>]

The difficulty with this article comes at the end,
with the following words:

The solution, > instead, is to continue with
democracy, to continue > to struggle honourably
> against opponents who fight dirty. Venezuelans
> should not have to face this > battle alone.

The author ignores the way that it is the very
existence of limited (and very temporary) bourgeois
democracy, and some limited left-wing reforms which
have created the crisis in Venezuela. Chavez has made
his power base with the poor workers, but he has to
throw the system into crisis to give them the crumbs
that he hopes will enable him to hold onto their
support.

Like Allende in Chile thirty years ago, Chavez is
running up against the wall of objective conditions
that make left reformism such an impossible project in
the poor semi-colonies of imperialism. Lula will face
the choice of either following Chavez's road, or else
moving sharply to the right and running the risk of
disillusioning his power base. Early indications are
that he is pursuing the second path.

The author seems to see the expansion of bourgeois
democracy and a left reformist policy programme as the
alternative to the US-backed 'counter-revolution', but
these prescriptions are utopian in a country like
Venezuela. Of course, it is essential to fight for
more reforms and for more bourgeois democracy, but it
has to be acknowledged that the winning of such things
will only drag the country further into a crisis that
can only end in Pinochet-style counter-revolution, on
the one hand, or socialist revolution, on the other.
There is simply no room for social democracy to
manoeuvre in the Third World.

It is in this situation that we can see the usefulness
of transitional  demands, already widely used in
Argentina (ie in the declaration of the Second
National Assembly of Workers and Unemployed).
Transitional demands are demands for reforms that are
concrete and urgently needed, yet cannot be met within
the framework of the system. In fighting for them,
workers can prepare themselves to take power. An
example is the demand that unemployment be tackled by
a reduction in the working week without a reduction in
pay, a demand which is being put forward by striking
train drivers in Bueonos Aires.

The author shows a lack of understanding of what a
real 'insurrection' would involve when she entertains
the idea that

"if Chvez > wanted to lead an > insurrection today, he
would have the strength to do > it. That is, the
people
> and the army at this moment would permit a >
victorious insurrection.

If Chavez was to lead a revolution, he would
effectively remove himself from power. Like Allende in
1973, Chavez is in an impossible position: he needs
capitalism to remain in power, but satisfying his
power base forces him to push at the limits of
capitalism. Chavezism means permanent instability.

I agree with the Workers' Power statement I posted,
and with the Agentinian Trotskyists: Chavez should be
defended from the CIA's counter-revolution, but the
workers who currently fall under his political
leadership should defend him in their own independent
organisations, which already appear to exist
embryonically in the form of the 'Bolivarian circles'.
If they do this, then they will have dual power, and
the ability to get create a revolution from below,
rather than from above.

Cheers
Scott





=====
"Revolution is not like cricket, not even one day cricket"

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com


     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---