[Marxism] Clueless reporting on Venezuela,

[David Walters <dave.walters@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

It might be clueless reporting as Louis states on part of Socialist 
Worker, but the subject is both serious and fascinating.

Orlando Chirinos is perhaps the best known and popular leader of what 
was the UNT. I say "was" because it hardly exists outside the factions 
that make it up. Union members identify with their plant or workplace 
union, which may, or may not have a formal "affiliation" with the UNT, 
and when it does, it's usually the Regional UNT, not the necessarily the 
national one. Further more, unionists of the UNT march under 
their...factional affiliation more often than not. A "union" the UNT is 
not, clearly.

I think, IMHO, it was a HUGE MISTAKE for Chirinos to do what he did, 
speaking with the openly counter-revolutionary, imperialist funded, 
fake, yellow-dog CTV. The IMT (marxist.com) group went after him on this 
and he didn't do himself, the UNT or the revolution, any favors when he 
did this. Chirinos also kept his wing of the UNT current. the C-CURA, 
out of PSUV. I think this was big mistake. Might as well set up camp in 
Siberia for all the good that will do him politically in Venezuela. 
However...

Chirinos has some points in his favor that personally appeal to me both 
as a Marxist and a trade unionist: he is a staunch defender of the 
independence of the UNT from the State OR PSUV. It reflects, in a mirror 
way, Chavez's biggest single fault, IMO: the *organized* working class 
and how that class expresses itself as a class.  Chavez has simply never 
understood unions or the role they should play in the Revolution. This 
goes back to the first Constitutional Convention where he tried to strip 
unions of their autonomy. His people in the Constituent Assembly 
withdrew the Article to do this under pressure from people like Stalin 
and Chirinos who would go on to form the UNT later.

In a recent spate of letters between Chirinos and Chavez, the latter 
attacked Chirinos for defending "union autonomy". Again, I think the 
argument put forward by Chirinos was correct against Chavez. Aporrea.org 
has the letters online. This has setup a dynamic that is not 
particularly fortunate for the Revolution. The UNT, while endorsing the 
Chavez for reelection in the last election did little, organizationally, 
to campaign for the "10 million votes". This has created schisms inside 
the UNT and caused non-UNT Chavistas to attack the UNT leadership and 
questioning even why "we need a UNT" at all. On other other hand, the 
most "loyal" Chavistas in the UNT have also sabotaged the development of 
the UNT into a strong, centralized union capable of being a strong 
foundation to push the revolution forward. Chavez's appointment of a 
"Trotskyist" to the leadership of the Labor Ministry has caused no end 
of trouble inside and outside the UNT as this Labor Minister has refused 
to defend or push for the nationalization of occupied factories, the 
demand of almost every occupied factory. Lastly, overlapping all this, 
the far-left of the UNT organized around Chirinos, refused to go   into 
the PSUV as mentioned above, when invited to do so by Chavez. Other 
sectors of the C-CURA have gone in to build the PSUV and represent the 
voice of revolutionary unionists inside this new party. I believe the 
majority of the C-CURA have entered the PSUV and can funciton 
democratically and in a tendency (despite Chavez stating "There will be 
not 'trends' inside the PSUV").

So..."complex and fascinating" it is.

David
PS...I fully expect Michael L. to make major corrections to the above 
where I'm overstating or flat out wrong :)

________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism