Re: AUT: The "National Strike" in Venezuela

["Dave Graham" <davgraham@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Scott Hamilton" <s_h_hamilton@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: <aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: 7. januar 2003 02.24
> Subject: Re: AUT: The "National Strike" in Venezuela
>
>
>
>
> Scott writes:
>
> >The author shows a lack of understanding of what a
> > real 'insurrection' would involve when she entertains
> > the idea that
> >
> > "if Chavez  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.
>
> Scott, whatever the weaknesses of the article, it would
> be real pleasant if you for once could read what people wrote,
> rather than to be singularily focused on scoring points and
> giving us your universal, never changing and unfailing
> program each time.
>         For the first, you are not quoting the author, Justin
> Podur, above but a statement the authour refers to given
> by "Marta Harnecker, a Chilean sociologist," who "has
> been following events in Venezuela closely and recently
> interviewed Chavez for 15 hours ..."
>         Secondly, you leave out the second part, where she
> draws pretty much the exact same conclusion as
> you do, namely: "The problem is what will happen
> tomorrow [that is the day after such an insurrection].
> I think he's sufficiently mature to understand the correlation
> of forces in which he finds himself and to understand
> that insurrection would not be the solution."
>         It does not take much imagination to grasp that
> "the correlation of forces" referred to here includes outside
> forces. Or in other words to rephrase her statement: "I think
> he's sufficiently mature to understand that  that insurrection
> would not be the solution given the correlation of
> forces in which he finds himself. Although he has the strength
> to lead an insurrection today, by such an act he would
> effectively remove himself from power tomorrow."
>
> Another comment. You write:
>
> " 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 them-
> selves to take power."
>
> Yes, the tired old Trotskyist tactic of lying to the workers.
> For somehow when such demands are promoted by
> trotskyists, they never say to the "stupid workers" that
> they they themselves do not believe the demands can
> be met within the framework of the system. Another
> thing is that quite often these so-called "transitional
> demands" are not more radical than even conservative
> governments might put them into effect at times.
>
> You continue: "An example is the demand that unemploy-
> ment be tackled by a reduction in the working week with-
> out a reduction in pay, a demand which is being put for-
> ward by striking train drivers in Buenos Aires."
>
> Now I do not find it too likely that they will win this demand
> in todays Argentina, but who knows given the value of
> money. But is in no circumstances not something that
> "cannot be met within the framework of the system". This
> is real illusionism. To grant a few such demands is
> precisely what a populist government might do to regain
> control. It is almost always possible to give with one hand
> the one day while taking it back with another hand the
> next day when things have calmed down. It is not at all
> likely to end unemployment though. But to bring about a
> speed-up, it might prove effective elsewhere; if maybe
> not among train drivers, so for instance among other
> railworkers. I suspect that by German standards for
> instance, there would be plenty room to both reduce the
> weekly hours somewhat without a reduction of wages,
> introduce speed-ups and other forms of rationalization,
> including an reduction of the numbers of workers, all in
> all resulting in an increase in the profits of the company.
>
> Harald
>
>
>
>
>      --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>
>



Hi all
I'm not interested in getting in on this 'debate' - just wanted to add
this.
Did not the Aufheben/Wildcat pamphlet about working time reduction in
France where workers 'won' a 35 hour week, not make exactly the same point
that Harald makes?
I also totally agree with Harald's argument about transitional demands -
you can't move in the UK for Trot groups and 'transitional demands'. Why
can't Leftists just say openly that they want CAPITALIST solution to
our problems?
We've been through all this before. It's a dialogue of the deaf and not
what Autopsy was set up for.

Gra






--
Dave Graham
<davgraham@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Get your free email address at http://www.merseymail.com/


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