[no subject]

["Fred Feldman" <ffeldman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The following is a slightly edited (cutting down on a few of my endless
sentences)  version of an article I wrote for the Cuba News list to answer a
Feb. 23 assessment of Venezuela by Jorge Martin, which was published on the
Marxis.com list and distributed to other lists by Andrew Sprewell, a strong
supporter of the Venezuelan and Cuban revolutions.
Jorge Martin's article on Venezuela, which was submitted to Cuba News  and
other lists by Andrew Sprewell,  is significantly better than what I have
read  about Venezuela from
some other socialist groups. I am putting my comments first, and appending
those of Martin, since I think his basic approach is already familiar.

 He recognizes that a revolution is taking
place, that the masses of people support the current government and have
good reasons for doing so, and that the defeat of the bosses strike was
carried out by the workers and peasants, together with the government and
the dominant forces in the army,  and lays the basis for further gains. His
primary criticisms of the government tend to be of the pace of the
revolutionary changes and response to reactionary attacks, which the author
unfailingly believes should have been quicker.

Certainly such criticisms
are not a sufficient basis to oppose the Chavez leadership, which has played
a role throughout in both initiating the revolutionary  process and in
organizing the people to further it,  and the article voices no opposition
to the leadership of the revolution thus far.

Criticisms of pace (I get impatient also, as any one who checks my
postings on Venezuela can tell, and I may not always be wrong to do so) are
not very weighty  when made from outside the actual struggle, and even from
the inside they can be wrong as well as right.  Overall, the success of the
revolution is undeniable so far and the author wisely does not deny it.

The main problem I see is an underestimation of the revolutionary process as
it is, verging at times on denial
of the existence,   importance and depth of the democratic revolution in
Venezuela.  There is a resulting confusion between the democratic and
socialist revolutions.  One consequence is  a crudely arbitrary proposal
for transforming the revolution now taking place into a socialist revolution
RIGHT NOW by nationalizing all capitalist property immediately, apparently
on the pretext of their counterrevolutionary role in the recent conflict but
actually because of the author's belief that the era of democratic
revolution ended in Latin America 200 years ago. ( I believe this was before
any democratic revolutions had taken place in the Americas except in the
United States and Haiti.)

I think that the actual course of the revolution in Venezuela has shown
that this historical estimate is not correct.  The national, democratic
revolution is
still on the agenda, at least in the Latin American countries I know most
about, and  one is actually taking place in Venezuela now. And I believe
that expropriating the capitalist class  because of their
role in last year's coup and the strike would be harmful to the economy,
disruptive of the revolutionary process, and needlessly divisive of the
revolutionary classes.

The confusion between the democratic and socialist revolutions is
highlighted in the reference to "the fulfillment of Simon Bolivar's dream
of a united America, a Socialist Federation of Latin America."  "A socialist
federation of Latin America" is a perspective that can arise only  from the
conditions and experiences of the working class, a class did not exist as a
cohesive or significant mass force anywhere  in Latin America in Bolivar's
day.  Bolivar -- a scion of the Venezuelan oligarchy who broke with most of
his class to lead the independence struggle and fight for greater unity
among the newly independent countries --  conceived of a unified Latin
America as
democratic (more accurately to the spirit of his views, republican)  rather
than socialist. A socialist
perspective, except perhaps in purely utopian terms, was quite unimaginable
in Latin America at that time.

This may sound harsh, but I think  it  is a bit demagogic to artifically
weld Bolivar to the socialist perspective in that way.

Moreover, none of the popular revolutionary or anti-imperialist leaders,
past or present,  in Latin America posed unity as a purely socialist task --
not Castro and Guevara, not Guiteras or Marti, not Miquilena or Chavez,  not
Peron or
Allende, not Villa and Zapata or Cardenas or the Zapatistas in Mexico today,
not Sandino or the FSLN of Nicaragua, or the FMLN in El Salvador, or Maurice
Bishop during the revolution on the Caribbean island  of Grenada, or any
other major leader of a living revolution.  In contrast to the author's
demand, none of these leaders made or
make or made socialist revolution the precondition for expanding unity
against
imperialism, collaboration in development, and letting down harmful barriers
to trade and travel and of other forms of collaboration.  The tendency
toward greater unification of Latin
America  (which I believe willl be a prolonged and primarily
non-administrative process arising out of national, democratic revolutions
in a number of inividual countries, not a cobbling together different
countries and
trying to impose a common government on them after socialist revolutions) --
actually arises as part of
the VERY unfinished national, democratic revolution.

>From what I can see, there is no mass demand for proceeding to the
socialist revolution in Venezuela today and Martin provides no evidence of
one -- no social or political  developments or even discussions he has had
that clearly pose this as the task of the day..  That may arise in the
future.  But today I think a sudden decision to expropriate the capitalists
would be disruptive, including of the progress the workers have made during
the strike in strengthening their positions in the factories such as the
degree of workers control that has been established.  As an
arbitrary  move, not dictated by the actual necessities of the struggle, it
would divide the workers further today, not unite them.

Right now, the workers and the Chavez government  are facing the challenge
of  reconstructing the organization and management of the oil industry -- a
huge chunk for a working class that has not been doing this sort of thing
for years and years.  The government and the workers and peasants who
support it also have to begin to manage warehouses and other formally
nationalized institutions connected to agriculture.

I  notice very little reference to the peasantry  in Martin's article.  And
yet, the entire revolution in Venezuela rests on and cannot exist without
the unification in struggle and fundamental agreement on tasks between  two
classes, the workers and the peasants.  The
government came to office, and has been able to  defend itself against
reactionary attacks, because the leading core around Chavez, and the growing
number of revolutionary fighters in city and  countryside who have taken the
lead in the revolutionary process, have  proceeded in
a way that strengthened and deepened  this alliance. The government is in
the process of  distributing a million acres of unused land to landless and
poor peasants and to urban families who are willing to try to make a living
in agriculture.  Even this big progressive step will leave a lot of rural
poor in Venezuela and a lot of land in the hands of their enemies.  Aren't
there more huge  democratic tasks in the countryside?  Is this alliance of
exploited classes reached the point where it is ready to go beyond this and
carry out a socialist revolution right
now?

It doesn't look that way to me.  They need more struggle for and more
experience in exercising their rights, organizing their ranks, and combating
the class enemy.

Martin indicates how the revolution  has gained some  ground among
students and the middle class, especially in the recent struggles over
education. Here the regime seems to be making some How would a sweeping
nationalization of all capitalists who opposed Chavez in the strike affect
this process?  Wouldn't such a seemingly vindictive -- and otherwise not
clearly motivated -- move spread panic and fear among them?  Wouldn't the
small shopkeepers and businesspeople who went along with the strike at one
point or another believe that they were about to lose all?  Wouldn't some of
the peasants become confused about what was to happen to their newly-won
land?

On the whole, this revolution has been well led.  The leadership has
inspired and furthered a broad mobilization of workers and peasants.
Important social changes have begun.  The imperialist control of the army
seems to have been greatly weakened, if not eliminated.  (While the
possibility of reactionary moves from within the army against the revolution
is something I don't dismiss at all, I note that the author does not cite
any recent ones and I don't know of any either.)  The attacks of the
Venezuelan exploiting classes and the imperialists have been met and set
back by a steadily consciously organized as well as spontaneous expansion of
the mobilization of the exploited. The workers
and peasants have gained confidence not in struggles against the Chavez
group, but in strugggles under their broad leadership -- a leadership that
also seems to encourage and foster initiatives on the part  of the masses.
The revolutionary process
has helped inspire popular movements and nationalist forces in Ecuador,
Brazil, and Bolivia  -- and in other countries as well.

Martin emphasizes the fact that Chavez has not called for socialism and has
indicated that some type of humane, independent capitalism may be possible.
Calls for socialism now are not in order, in my opinion, because that is not
what the masses themselves are fighting for today.

The weakness and relative narrowness of socialist -- as distinct from
class -- consciousness in the
workers and peasants today, and in the Chavez leadership (and there is no
evidence in my opinion that the lack of socialist consciousness in the
masses is a result of the Chavez leadership), is a different matter than the
fact that there are no calls for socialism being issued.  The problem of
consciousness stems from historical factors (the failure of successive
leaderships and struggles in Venezuela coupled with the collapse of the
regimes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe and the decay and collapse of
the structures which had been identified with socialism by people and
parties all over the world) which make a rebuilding and renewal of socialist
consciousness on a higher level a necessity and possibility in much of the
world.

This can only be
accomplished by  the masses through their own  struggles.  In Venezuela,
this lack can
be overcome as the Venezuelan people go through the democratic
revolutionary experience of today.  Small groups of  socialists calling on
them to floor the accelerator on the revolution will not have any positive
effect, I think.

The challenges that are coming, I believe, will come more directly from the
United States at the next stage -- including consequences of the growing
U.S. war in  bordering Colombia  and the growing indications that Washington
may move to limit or end Venezuelan oil imports (especially if they win
control of Iraqi oil fields).

Martin makes a number of references to "warnings" that  he or  his group
issued
to the Venezuelan workers.  I appreciate this kind of foresight and think I
have a little of it myself.  But the ability to see the potholes in front of
a barreling 16-wheeler doesn't prove we are qualified to drive the truck.
I think the Venezuelan revolution is on course at this  point, and I don't
think the leaders or the revolutionary-minded masses are hallucinating that
they aren't going to face big
problems in the future.
Fred Feldman
*************
Jorge Martin's article follows:
   Subject: [Venezuela_Today] February 23 article on Venezuela from
Marxist.com


  http://www.marxist.com/Latinam/venezuela_JM_0203eng.html
  The defeat of the bosses lock out and the sabotage of the oil industry
  deepens the revolutionary process in Venezuela

  by Jorge Martín

  On Thursday February 20 at midnight, the Venezuelan police arrested the
  president of the bosses' organisation Fedecamaras Carlos Fernandez,
accused
  of five different charges: betrayal to the fatherland, rebellion,
instigation
  to crime, association to commit crime, and devastation. Carlos Fernandez,
  together with the leader of the trade union confederation CTV Carlos
Ortega
  (against whom there is also an arrest warrant) had been the main public
faces
  of the bosses' lock out and sabotage of the oil industry in December and
  January through which the Venezuelan ruling class tried to overthrow the
  Chávez government.
  This action of the justice system reflects clearly the pressure of the
  revolutionary movement and the new balance of forces after the complete
  failure of the attempted coup. From the beginning of this action on
December
  2, the forces of reaction went from defeat to defeat. This was basically
due
  to the initiative of the masses who fought back decisively at every stage.
  Every one of the actions of the reactionary forces had the effect of
  increasing support for the revolutionary process and raised the level of
  consciousness and organisation of the people generally and the workers in
  particular.
  The most important factor was the extraordinary reaction of the oil
workers
  who fought back and overcame the sabotage conducted by managers,
directors,
  and a large section of the technicians of PDVSA, the state-owned oil
company.
  In refineries like Puerto la Cruz, El Palito, the Yagua distribution
centre,
  and others, the oil workers went to work and in an organised way
  re-established the normal functioning of the oil industry under workers'
  control. It can be said without fear of exaggeration that it was the oil
  workers who saved the Chavez government, since bringing to a halt the oil
  industry was a key element in the strategy of the oligarchy. This is a
  marvellous example of the capacity of the working class to struggle and to
  organise production by itself. In a few days the oil workers destroyed the
  myth that the managerial layer of PDVSA are the only ones who know how to
  organise production. Furthermore this experience of workers' control took
  place not in a small bankrupt company which the workers were forced to
  reopen, but in the main industry in the country, and one of the 50 largest
  companies in the world. This is of enormous political significance and
sets
  an important precedent. It can be said that the qualitative leap forward
  which took place in the struggle against the lock out is that the working
  class for the first time participated in the revolutionary process as a
  class, while previously it had only participated as a part of the
population
  in general.
  We should add that the oil workers had the support of the revolutionary
  masses who all over the country defended PDVSA buildings and refineries,
and
  of the National Guard which in agreement with the workers and the people,
  organised and controlled the distribution of fuel during the 63 days of
the
  lock out.
  At the beginning of January, the so-called Democratic Coordination
(popularly
  known as the anti-Democratic Conspiracy - CD) decided to up the stakes by
  declaring the non-resumption of school activities after the Christmas
break.
  Once again this was a serious mistake, since their actions only provoked
the
  reaction of masses and increased the level of popular organisation. All
over
  the country, communities organised themselves to ensure the opening of the
  schools, and reactionary teachers who refused to teach were replaced by
  volunteers (unemployed teachers, university students, etc). Likewise in
the
  universities there was a strong movement of the students demanding
resumption
  of lectures, which finally managed to force the reopening of most
  universities. This has strengthened and organised a left wing student's
  movement which was quite weak before.
  The peak of this process was the massive march in support of the
revolution
  on January 23, which was called "the taking over of Caracas". The
opposition
  had created a climate of panic and fear amongst the middle classes,
spreading
  the idea that the march was going to mean an invasion of the "Chavista
  hordes" coming down from the "cerros" (the hills which surround Caracas
  where most poor people live) to loot the middle class neighborhoods. For
  weeks the opposition leaders had been organising "contingency plans" which
  included a census of all firearms available, accumulation of food and
water,
  the organisation of the armed defence of streets, buildings and
  neighbourhoods, the blocking of streets with gates, barricades, etc. The
aim
  was clearly to create a climate of fear, using the middle classes as the
  shock troops of the oligarchy in order to provoke a violent clash which
would
  justify a foreign intervention under the mandate of the Organisation of
  American States, and with the support of a section of the armed forces in
  order to overthrow Chavez.
  Counter-revolutionary provocations
  One of the peaks of this strategy was the clash in Los Próceres, just
outside
  Fuerte Tiuna (the main army barracks in Caracas) in the first days of
  January. The opposition had called for a rally outside Fuerte Tiuna
demanding
  freedom for an army officer under arrest for participating in an earlier
coup
  attempt. All the opposition media publicized the call for the rally
  presenting it as the "final battle" which would finally overthrow Chavez.
  This was a provocation prepared down to the last detail. The government
did
  not do anything, and did not call for the masses to organize a serious
  counter-demonstration. However, thousands of Bolivarians gathered to
defend
  the revolutionary process and against the reactionary provocation. After
  hours of verbal clashes the reactionaries opened fire and killed two
Chavez
  supporters. To add insult to injury the opposition-controlled Metropolitan
  Police attacked the place where the revolutionaries were mourning their
dead.
  The clashes on that day also reflected the feeling of powerlessness of the
  masses which were witnessing how the counter-revolution was carrying out
its
  plans without a serious fight back on the part of the government or the
  organisations which support it.
  It was in this framework that the massive mobilisation of January 23 took
  place. Some 2 million people took part in that impressive show of strength
  against reaction and to defend the government. That demonstration was the
  last nail in the coffin of the attempted reactionary coup of
  December-January. The anti-Democratic Coordination had no other option but
to
  admit its defeat and publicly announced the "easing of the strike" and
later
  on called it off altogether. That was a sorry spectacle in which all the
  contradictions within the DC exploded into the open. No-one wanted to take
  responsibility for having called the "indefinite civic strike", and "it
  wasn't me" once again became the slogan of the day.
  In these conditions, Chávez has adopted a strategy which is very different
  from the one he used after the April 11 coup of last year. On that
occasion
  he tried to conciliate, negotiate, he asked for forgiveness and reinstated
  the old directors of PDVSA. We already warned at that time that the
attempt
  to appease reaction through negotiation would only have the effect of
  strengthening the resolve of the reactionary ruling class which would
  inevitably use the opportunity to prepare for a new coup.
  Even during the attempted coup in December-January, the Chávez's position
was
  extremely legalistic, faithfully following all legal proceedings while the
  reaction used all sorts of illegal methods to paralyze the country and
  sabotaged the action of the justice system from within. The fight back of
the
  workers and the people took place despite the lack of any nation-wide
  revolutionary leadership which could coordinate and organise their
efforts.
  Despite the fact that there are tens and even hundreds of thousands of
rank
  and file organizations all over the country, the revolutionary movement
  still lacks a nation-wide coordinating body.
  Revolutionary offensive
  Starting with his speech at the massive demonstration on January 23, Hugo
  Chávez made it clear that this is the time to go on the offensive and he
has
  called for a deepening of the organisation of the people. The government
has
  implemented a series of measures to fight against reaction, starting with
the
  suspension of foreign exchange while control mechanisms are put in place
(in
  order to fight against the flight of capital), price controls over basic
  products (to fight speculation), and a discussion in parliament for a new
law
  of social responsibility of the media (which played a crucial role in the
  organisation of every single coup conspiracy). Even in his "Hi President"
  program on February 16 he said that the organisations created to defend
the
  right to education should now became organisations of revolutionary
vigilance
  over the price controls.
  At the same time Chávez has been broadcast a number of TV programs from
the
  different oil refineries in which he recognizes and thanks oil workers for
  their role in the defeat of the attempted coup. Also, mass rallies have
been
  organized in different states which have opposition governors in which
Chavez
  calls for these to be recalled (a mechanism which is part of the new
  constitution) before the end of the year.
  The arrest of coup conspirator Carlos Fernandez is part of this offensive
and
  is obviously welcomed by the majority of the people. The most widespread
  comment is that this was long overdue. In fact the popular organisations,
the
  demonstrations and graffiti on the walls in the main cities had been
  demanding "strong action" to be taken for a long time. The leader of the
  telephone workers, José Mora, declared that he was happy that Carlos
Ortega
  had gone into hiding because this meant that now the workers could go and
  find him themselves and settle accounts.
  However, even this action shows the limits of government action since a
few
  hours after being arrested, the judge in charge of the case was replaced
by
  another one who immediately placed him merely under house arrest and
withdrew
  some of the charges. This is a scandalous decision since there is already
the
  precedent of the escape of Pedro Carmona, the main figure in the April 11
  coup, who was also sentenced to house arrest. Meanwhile the Defenders of
  Puente Llaguno who defended the democratic government on April 11 rot in
jail
  waiting for a trial despite the fact that one of them is dying of cancer.
It
  is clear that the judiciary is still largely in the hands of reaction.
  However it would be foolish to think that the reactionaries are dead and
  buried. It is true that they were dealt a heavy blow with the defeat of
their
  attempt in December-January, but the Venezuelan ruling class is far from
  having been defeated once and for all and continues to agitate in the
media
  waiting for a new opportunity.
  Economic crisis
  The main challenge that faces the revolutionary process right now is the
  collapse of the economy as a result of the oil sabotage and the conscious
  disorganization of the productive process on behalf of the capitalists,
  particularly in the food sector. The oligarchy is trying by all means to
  create chaos and shortages in order to undermine the social basis of
support
  for the revolutionary process. In this respect the measures taken so far
by
  the government are completely insufficient and limited.
  First of all one must discuss the question of the reorganization of PDVSA.
So
  far the government has appointed new directors which, following the people
's
  call for "cleaning out PDVSA," has already sacked 12,000 employees, the
  overwhelming majority of them directors and technicians of the upper
echelons
  of the company. However it is not enough to replace one set of directors
for
  another which might be more or less loyal to the revolutionary process. On
  the contrary, the impressive experience of workers' control over
production
  during the sabotage must be used to spread it to the running of PDVSA as a
  whole. Oil workers have saved PDVSA and they are the ones who should be
  running it from now on. A national congress of oil workers must be called
in
  order to unify all workers and establish the mechanisms of workers'
control.
  This is the only way to guarantee that "PDVSA belongs to the people" and
  that it is run for the benefit of all. Workers' control of industry should
  also spread to all state-owned companies where many of the directors also
  declared themselves to be "in rebellion".
  Another front is that of the private companies in which the bosses are
trying
  to make the workers pay for the cost of the bosses' lock out. Workers must
  resist in an organised way any attempt to paralyse totally or partially
their
  factories, any attempts to cut wages, to declare unpaid holidays, etc. In
  several factories around the country there have already been important
  examples of such struggles. The Convencaucho workers in Barquisimeto
(Lara)
  had to force the change of their union leaders and occupy the factory to
  force the employer to pay their wages in full and keep the factory open.
Also
  in the car industry in Carabobo the workers have so far defeated the
attempts
  of the employers to make them pay the effects of the lock out. One of the
  main discussions amongst class struggle and democratic trade union
activists
  right now is around the issue of factory occupations and their running
under
  workers' control. The experience of factory occupations in Argentina has
  undoubtedly had a serious impact.
  At a recent meeting of 350 trade union leaders from all over the country
  called by the "Trade Union Autonomy" current there was a discussion on
this
  issue on the basis of a document which called for "the occupation of all
  companies which are abandoned, declared bankrupt, closed down or
  semi-paralysed, creating workers' committees to force their statisation
under
  workers' control of production". The "Workers´ Mole" trade union current
in
  Lara openly demands that "faced with the capitalist crisis the government
  must reactivate industry, applying the principle of 'company closed,
company
  opened under workers' control'". Even within the Ministry of Labour there
  are discussions on workers' control and how to legalise any factory
  occupations which might take place.
  Another important question is that of control over the finance sector.
  Together with the measures already taken regarding foreign exchange, there
  must be an offensive against the private banking sector. The banks adopted
a
  clear line of support for the opposition sabotage and therefore should be
  deprived of the means of doing it again. It is true that the government
has
  already withdrawn part of its assets in private banks, but this is not
  enough. The nationalisation of the banks (which in the main use resources
  which belong to the state) would allow the government access to a large
  amount of money which could be used to alleviate the economic crisis
through
  a massive program of public works, and which would guarantee the payment
of
  wages to public employees and the normal functioning of public services,
like
  health and education which are currently under threat for lack of
resources.
  The nationalisation of the banks would also allow the government to
finance
  the statisation of occupied factories.
  A new trade union confederation
  As a part of the workers' offensive there have been discussions about the
  setting up of a new trade union confederation to replace the reactionary
  leaders of the CTV. However this process has received strong criticism
from
  trade union activists from the beginning because of the methods which have
  been used. The proposal has come from a number of trade union leaders who
are
  close to the government, which have raised the idea from above without any
  real consultation of the rank and file and without organising a campaign
  within the existing unions. It would seem that for them, the most
important
  thing is to set a date for the founding of the new trade union centre
(March
  15) and to decide who is going to be on the leadership.
  These are clearly wrong methods. In order to move towards a real
re-founding
  of the trade union movement in Venezuela, a serious campaign of
explanation,
  discussion and struggle must be organised in order to win over the
  overwhelming majority of workers who still belong to unions which are
  affiliated to the CTV, and organise all those who are still
  un-organised. The practical experience of the last few months and weeks
  clearly shows that the CTV leaders (who appointed themselves at the end of
a
  rigged election process) are completely discredited in the eyes of their
own
  members. The political moment is favourable. Such a campaign culminating
in a
  national-wide workers' constituent assembly to set up a new trade union
  confederation based on the principles of class struggle, democratic and
mili
  tant trade unionism, would have a massive impact.
  One of the main weaknesses of the revolution is still the lack of a
  nation-wide coordination of all revolutionary committees and organisations
  which have been set up in the last few years. All Bolivarian circles (of
  which there are now 300,000), democratic unions, urban land committees,
  student organisations, committees to defend education rights, etc. should
  establish coordination bodies at the neighbourhood, local, state, and
  national level, through the democratic election of delegates with the
right
  of recall at any time. This would enormously strengthen the movement and
  would give it a democratic leadership, which would help generalize
  experiences and advance in its political conclusions.
  Socialism the only way forward
  Finally, it is also time to make a balance sheet of the political
  perspectives of the revolution. Hugo Chávez's project, which opened the
doors
  for this process of mass mobilisation and popular organisation, was one
based
  on the development of the country's productive forces, defending national
  sovereignty and applying a number of measures in favour of the oppressed
  masses. But this project never raised the question of going further than
the
  limits of the capitalist system. On occasion Chávez has spoken of a
"humane
  capitalism". From the very beginning we warned that in the epoch of
  imperialist domination there can be no independent national capitalist
  development in any country. The epoch of bourgeois revolution was more
than
  200 years ago. The last four years of the revolutionary process in
Venezuela
  have shown quite clearly that the decisive sections of the Venezuelan
  bourgeoisie are completely linked to imperialism and are unable to play
any
  progressive role at all.
  The bourgeoisie will give the government no respite. The only way to reach
  agreements with the employers is on the basis of making the workers pay
for
  the crisis, and this would provoke a decisive fight back from a labour
  movement which now feels confident. On the contrary, the defeat of the
  bosses' lock out has shown the central role of the working class in any
  capitalist country. There is no other way to defend and deepen the
revolution
  other than attacking the basis of the capitalist system itself; that is,
by
  placing the means of production, distribution and exchange in the hands of
  the workers and the people to be run in the interests of the majority of
the
  population. Only on the basis of a socialist system of democratic planning
of
  the economy would it be possible to develop the country's productive
forces
  and use the enormous wealth of the country to improve the living
conditions
  of the overwhelming majority of the people, and not to fill the Miami bank
  accounts of an idle minority.
  A socialist revolution in Venezuela would be a powerful beacon of light
which
  would orientate the struggle of the workers and peasants in the whole of
  Latin America, setting the basis for the fulfillment of Simon Bolivar's
dream
  of a united America, a Socialist Federation of Latin America.
  Workers' control of production in PDVSA and the nationalised companies!
  Every factory closed is a factory opened under workers' control!
  Nationalisation of the banks!
  Expropriation of coup-organising bosses!
  Forward to socialism!


  Caracas, February 26, 2003.

        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              ADVERTISEMENT








[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT




To unsubscribe from this CubaNews group, send an email to:
CubaNews-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT





Peruuta ryhmän tilaus lähettämällä sähköpostia osoitteeseen:
kominform2-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.