From a Facebook Posting by Federico Fuentes
I have had a few people ask me what I think of the recent article by Mike Gonzalez regarding events in Venezuela https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/02/is-venezuela-burning/
Putting aside the fact he can't even get the name right of the oil minster, here are 3 things that are wrong with the article:
1) “It is no secret that behind the façade of unity, there is a struggle for power between extremely wealthy and influential groups within government — a struggle that began to intensify in the months before Chavez’s death.”
If this was no secret, then surely there would be a mount of evidence to prove this. But Mike offers none.
A more serious analysis, would indicate the opposite: that despite the narrow election victory in April 2013, the immediately wave of opposition violence and campaign around “fraud”, the ongoing economic war against the government, the municipal elections and the most recent events, there has been no visible signs of fractures in the government.
Even serious right-wing analyst can see this: “What makes Venezuela’s government so different is its absolute dominance of all the main levers of political power. President Nicolas Maduro’s administration wields unquestionable control over the Supreme Court, the Congress, the military and the oil industry -- the very institutions that could threaten his regime.” http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-02-25/venezuela-is-no-ukraine
Add to that the solid support the government still maintains among working class and poor sections and you start to see a very different picture to the one Mike paints of a government on the brink of cracking up.
In fact, the only people that continually speculate about such internal struggles (apart from Mike and a few other leftists) are the gossip columnists in the right-wing media.
None of this is to deny that there are *political* differences within the government and Chavismo more generally, which brings me to…
2) “All of this is an expression of an economic crisis vigorously denied by the Maduro government but obvious to everyone else.”
Again, this is just plain silliness to claim the Maduro government is denying economic problems. In fact one of the key triggers to the recent protests (ignored by Mike) was that the government had precisely begun to take measures to address the economic problems, starting with the imposition of set profit margins and accompanying regulations to open company books.
But Mike’s article goes further and also invents a crisis that does not exist. Let’s just look at what Mike says and some of the actual figures:
“2012 had seen inflation rates hovering around fifty percent (officially) and the level has risen inexorably throughout the last year.”
Inflation in 2012: 20.1% http://www.ultimasnoticias.com.ve/noticias/actualidad/economia/inflacion-en-venezuela-cerro-2012-en-20-1.aspx
Inflation in 2013: 56.2% http://globovision.com/articulo/inflacion-en-noviembre-fue-de-48-y-la-de-diciembre-22
That is it was not around 50% in 2012 and it did not rise inexorably from that imaginary figure (even if it clearly did rise substantially in 2013)
“The shortages are explained partly by speculation on the part of capitalists — just as happened in Chile in 1972 — and partly by the rising cost of imports, which make up a growing proportion of what is consumed in Venezuela”
Value of imports in 2012: US$47.310 billion
Value of imports in 2013: US$37.802
http://www.ine.gov.ve/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=48&Itemid=33
That is value of imports when down. In fact the value of imports in 2013 was higher in 2007, 2008 and 2009 than it was last year.
“Today, those funds [oil wealth] are drying up as Venezuela’s oil income is diverted to paying for increasingly expensive imports.”
As I showed above imports are not more expensive. But its also not true that funds are drying up:
Value of exports 2012: US$97.340 billion. http://www.bcv.org.ve/Upload/Publicaciones/anuasectorexterno77-12.pdf?id=458
I couldn’t find the figure for 2013, but I doubt exports fell by 2/3 which would indicate Venezuela continues have a nice trade surplus.
I could continue to do the same for almost every other assertion Mike makes (and happy to do so if you want me to). Or point to figures that show despite the “crisis” poverty rates and unemployment continue to fall, unheard of in any other economic crisis. But the main point is not so much the gross errors Mike makes, but why he does so.
The reason is because what he wants to demonstrate is that the government is just as responsible for the “economic crisis” as the opposition. To so he has to make up stuff like the government is going bankrupt, oil money is drying up, imports are skyrocketing while production at home has all but disappeared…. All the same stuff that the right wing media says.
This matters because as the old saying goes: “if you make the wrong diagnosis, you will never apply the right remedy”. The right wing says all this to prove that the Chavista economic model of state control and redistribution of oil wealth to meet peoples needs will inevitable destroy the economy.
But they are not the only ones saying this. There are some in the government who disagree with key economic policies, hence the *political* struggles I referred to above.
This is also true more broadly with the Bolivarian Revolution. For example, Roland Denis, who Mike is so fond of, is part of a group within Chavismo that argues much the same line as Mike when it comes to the government’s economic problems. Unlike Mike, they have put forward their alternative economic policies in the Que Hacer? document http://www.aporrea.org/ideologia/a167599.html
I’ll let you decide jut how “left-wing” their economic policies are.
Again, none of this is to say there are not economic problems, but behind this debate filled with dubious stats and assertions is a more important political debate of what should happen to Venezuela’s oil wealth.
3) “What can save the Bolivarian project, and the hope it inspired in so many, is for the speculators and bureaucrats to be removed, and for popular power to be built, from the ground up, on the basis of a genuine socialism — participatory, democratic, and exemplary in refusing to reproduce the values and methods of a capitalism which has been unmasked by the revolutionary youth of Greece, Spain and the Middle East.”
This is all well and good, but ultimately a motherhood statement devoid of any content. I wonder if Mike agrees’ with the alternative policies proposed in the Que Hacer document as a way to refuse to reproduce the values and methods of capitalism? Who knows? All Mike has to say can be summed up in a slogan “one solution: revolution!”
But this is not the only problem with such statements. Pretty much since 2002, leftists like Mike have been saying the same thing “Venezuela is at a crossroads, only two options, restore old order or deepen the revolution towards socialism”. But after 12 years should we ask ourselves some questions like: isn’t it perhaps possible that out of every crisis, the government has taken measures to deepened the revolution, hence why the Bolivarian revolution is still going and the old elites are not back in power? Isnt perhaps true that implementing some kind of war communism in Venezuela (which tends to be what calls to deepen the revolution amount to) would not be the best course of action? Isn’t it the case that given the current international balance of forces it is possible for the revolution to continue advancing but that conditions do not exist for Venezuela to implement socialism in one country?
This are serious questions that some of the left continue to paper over, preferring slogans to real action.
Federico Fuentes is a national executive member of the Socialist Alliance (Australia). He edits Bolivia Rising and is part of the Venezuelanalysis.com editorial collective
Tuesday, February 25, 2014
Wednesday, February 19, 2014
Louis Proyect and the ISO: A Response
In his article, Notes on a Staggering ISO, www.counterpunch.org Louis Proyect criticizes the International Socialist Organization (ISO), for having members only political discussions. Proyect defends anonymous sources leaking ISO internal documents to a blogger who is hostile to the organized left.
Proyect's position is since the government knows everything we're doing, anyway, there's no need for secrecy. I wonder what Proyect would have said, to the organizers of the 1930's Flint Sit Down strike, or the Minneapolis Teamsters organizaing drive, who conducted many of their meetings in secret? What does Proyect have to say to workers engaged in the initial phase of an organizing campaign, where secrecy is certainly required?
Much has been said, for or against "security culture" within leftist groups, on other forums. My response, with this article, will be to address the alternatives to Leninist or cadre formations that Proyect proposes, and the ISO opposition.
Historically, within the US Trotskyist movement, internal factional battles have usually been along clear cut lines. Examples include whether or not to defend the former Soviet Union against imperialism, disagreement,whether or not Cuba is a "healthy" or "deformed" workers state, or the relevance of the theory of Permanent Revolution.
This is not the case with recent factionalism within the ISO. Those who have left, within the last 5 years, or still remain within the organization, are all over the place politically. The most prevalent unifying theme is that the leadership is in error, defining the post 2008 recession period as one of "heightened class struggle." The opposition really never offered a concrete proposal on changing the direction of the ISO.
Former members are not exactly united. Historically, in most groups when an opposition leaves or is expelled they generally leave as an organized tendency or faction, and in many cases form a new organization. Most recent examples are Left Turn, by former ISO members, Committees for Correspondence by former Communist Party members, and Socialist Action by former members of the Socialist Workers Party/US.
As they were internally, externally former ISO oppositionists are all over the map, politically. Some work in single issue campaigns. I know of only one who has joined another revolutionary organization. One has thrown his lot in with the Anarchists. Another has written off organization altogether saying, "carrying out a revolution is like calling up some friends to go to a movie." I would advise this individual to cut back on his drug usage. It remains to be seen what political path that former members of the ISO Renewal Faction, who were expelled at the recent convention, will take.
Former members of the ISO tell me, that oppositionists were never able to contact each other because of not having the right to organize tendencies. The existence of the now defunct, as a result of their wholesale expulsion, Renewal Faction would seem to contradict this claim. In any event the right to form tendencies and factions, at least for pre convention discussion should be quarnteed.
Louis Proyect calls for a new type of organization altogether. He wants to assign the term cadre, "to the dustbin of history." He doesn't quite get the military usage of the term cadre right. It's not just officers, but trained soldiers, around which units are bought up to full strength. The term in military usage, also refers to those responsible for training new troops. This includes drill sergeants, instructors, and yes, officers.
The politcal concept, is that when there is an upsurge, ideally a revolutionary one, the relatively small revolutionary organizations will be the core, to attract larger numbers, or I suppose one could say, critical mass. The most famous example is the expansion of the Bolsheviks in Russia, in 1917, from 10,000 members at the time of the February Revolution to 250,000 at the time of the Ocotber Revolution (old calendar). Though I haven't seen the figures, I assume that the Mensheviks and Social Revolutionaries also had significant growth during this period.
Proyect omits the significant role played by cadre type organizations in various struggles. Examples are the role of the Communist Party in labor organizing and eviction defense, during the 1930's, the role of the Socialist Workers Party in the Teamster organizing campaigns in Minneapolis in 1934. Later examples are the role, once again of the Socialist Workers Party, during the anti war movement during the Vietnam war, the role of Socialist Action in solidarity work with the Hormel strikers during the 1980's, the international conferences against neo liberalism in which Socialist Organizer played a significant role. Proyect seems unaware of the exemplary role played by the International Socialist Organization during the campaign to defend the Charleston 5, in 2001.
It could be argued, I suppose that non cadre organizations, while having a smaller percentage of their members being active, would make up for this with a larger membership. In other words, a non cadre organization of 5000 could do the work of a cadre type organization of 1000. Fair enough, except where is this non cadre organizatin of 5000. Solidarity? Socialist Party USA? I don't think so.
Proyect calls for getting rid of the usual leftist symbols such as red stars, and go with American symbolism. Is Proyect proposing for example that leftist conferences, such as the annual Socialism Conferences sponsored by the ISO begin with the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag? Is Proyect suggesting that instead of closing the conference with the singing of The Internationale, a more appropriate closing anthem would be God Bless America? Reminds me of an article by one of Proyect's co-thinkers a former member of the International Socialists Network, in Britain: Down With the Internationale, Up With Rule Brittania! OK, the article wasn't quite that bad. Almost, but not quite.
There are some good suggestions by Proyect. For example:
......we need something like an American Syriza-a broad left-of-center party that can accept people on their own terms ideologically as long as they adhere to key programmatic demands such as:
-Run election campaigns opposed to corporate rule, against both Republicans and Democrats.
=Organize campaigns against environmental despoliation from fracking to mountaintop removal.
-Strengthen the trade unions through organizing drives aimed at the most exploited workers.
While not bad suggestions, as usual the devil is in the details. Will this type of organization be an activist one or a talk shop? Will there be well organized campaigns, or will everyone do whatever they want to do, politically speaking?
The non cadre type organizations, such as Solidarity and Socialist Party USA, are both probably smaller than the ISO. The one attempt by former SWP members, to form such an organization, during the 1980's, the North Star Network, was nothing more than a personality cult around the late Peter Camejo. Why will Proyect's alternative be different?
Speaking for myself, I'm of the opinion that the entire left, all organizations as well as individuals, failed to understand the signifcance and impact of the "Great Recession." The entire US left regards the suffering and deprivation resulting from the economic down turn of 2008 as just one issue among many.
This is hardly surprising. Issues of unemployment and poverty have traditionaly been the Achilles heel of the U.S. Left. Anarchists in the San Francisco Bay Area don't even believe that involuntary poverty and unemployment exists among native born workers. Others on the left believe that Bill Clinton resolved all the contradictions of capitalism. I submit that this failure, more than any organizational formula is the main explanation for the marginalization of the U.S. left.
For further reading:
http://socialistworker.org/2014/02/19/a-response-to-slander
http://externalbulletin.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/we-are-expelled/
http://kasamaproject.org/threads/entry/killing-lenin-again-the-conscious-crusade-against-left-security-culture
http://redguarddude.blogspot.com/2014/02/leftists-against-left.html
Proyect's position is since the government knows everything we're doing, anyway, there's no need for secrecy. I wonder what Proyect would have said, to the organizers of the 1930's Flint Sit Down strike, or the Minneapolis Teamsters organizaing drive, who conducted many of their meetings in secret? What does Proyect have to say to workers engaged in the initial phase of an organizing campaign, where secrecy is certainly required?
Much has been said, for or against "security culture" within leftist groups, on other forums. My response, with this article, will be to address the alternatives to Leninist or cadre formations that Proyect proposes, and the ISO opposition.
ISO Opposition
Historically, within the US Trotskyist movement, internal factional battles have usually been along clear cut lines. Examples include whether or not to defend the former Soviet Union against imperialism, disagreement,whether or not Cuba is a "healthy" or "deformed" workers state, or the relevance of the theory of Permanent Revolution.
This is not the case with recent factionalism within the ISO. Those who have left, within the last 5 years, or still remain within the organization, are all over the place politically. The most prevalent unifying theme is that the leadership is in error, defining the post 2008 recession period as one of "heightened class struggle." The opposition really never offered a concrete proposal on changing the direction of the ISO.
Former members are not exactly united. Historically, in most groups when an opposition leaves or is expelled they generally leave as an organized tendency or faction, and in many cases form a new organization. Most recent examples are Left Turn, by former ISO members, Committees for Correspondence by former Communist Party members, and Socialist Action by former members of the Socialist Workers Party/US.
As they were internally, externally former ISO oppositionists are all over the map, politically. Some work in single issue campaigns. I know of only one who has joined another revolutionary organization. One has thrown his lot in with the Anarchists. Another has written off organization altogether saying, "carrying out a revolution is like calling up some friends to go to a movie." I would advise this individual to cut back on his drug usage. It remains to be seen what political path that former members of the ISO Renewal Faction, who were expelled at the recent convention, will take.
Former members of the ISO tell me, that oppositionists were never able to contact each other because of not having the right to organize tendencies. The existence of the now defunct, as a result of their wholesale expulsion, Renewal Faction would seem to contradict this claim. In any event the right to form tendencies and factions, at least for pre convention discussion should be quarnteed.
A New Type of Party?
Louis Proyect calls for a new type of organization altogether. He wants to assign the term cadre, "to the dustbin of history." He doesn't quite get the military usage of the term cadre right. It's not just officers, but trained soldiers, around which units are bought up to full strength. The term in military usage, also refers to those responsible for training new troops. This includes drill sergeants, instructors, and yes, officers.
The politcal concept, is that when there is an upsurge, ideally a revolutionary one, the relatively small revolutionary organizations will be the core, to attract larger numbers, or I suppose one could say, critical mass. The most famous example is the expansion of the Bolsheviks in Russia, in 1917, from 10,000 members at the time of the February Revolution to 250,000 at the time of the Ocotber Revolution (old calendar). Though I haven't seen the figures, I assume that the Mensheviks and Social Revolutionaries also had significant growth during this period.
Proyect omits the significant role played by cadre type organizations in various struggles. Examples are the role of the Communist Party in labor organizing and eviction defense, during the 1930's, the role of the Socialist Workers Party in the Teamster organizing campaigns in Minneapolis in 1934. Later examples are the role, once again of the Socialist Workers Party, during the anti war movement during the Vietnam war, the role of Socialist Action in solidarity work with the Hormel strikers during the 1980's, the international conferences against neo liberalism in which Socialist Organizer played a significant role. Proyect seems unaware of the exemplary role played by the International Socialist Organization during the campaign to defend the Charleston 5, in 2001.
It could be argued, I suppose that non cadre organizations, while having a smaller percentage of their members being active, would make up for this with a larger membership. In other words, a non cadre organization of 5000 could do the work of a cadre type organization of 1000. Fair enough, except where is this non cadre organizatin of 5000. Solidarity? Socialist Party USA? I don't think so.
Proyect calls for getting rid of the usual leftist symbols such as red stars, and go with American symbolism. Is Proyect proposing for example that leftist conferences, such as the annual Socialism Conferences sponsored by the ISO begin with the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag? Is Proyect suggesting that instead of closing the conference with the singing of The Internationale, a more appropriate closing anthem would be God Bless America? Reminds me of an article by one of Proyect's co-thinkers a former member of the International Socialists Network, in Britain: Down With the Internationale, Up With Rule Brittania! OK, the article wasn't quite that bad. Almost, but not quite.
There are some good suggestions by Proyect. For example:
......we need something like an American Syriza-a broad left-of-center party that can accept people on their own terms ideologically as long as they adhere to key programmatic demands such as:
-Run election campaigns opposed to corporate rule, against both Republicans and Democrats.
=Organize campaigns against environmental despoliation from fracking to mountaintop removal.
-Strengthen the trade unions through organizing drives aimed at the most exploited workers.
While not bad suggestions, as usual the devil is in the details. Will this type of organization be an activist one or a talk shop? Will there be well organized campaigns, or will everyone do whatever they want to do, politically speaking?
The non cadre type organizations, such as Solidarity and Socialist Party USA, are both probably smaller than the ISO. The one attempt by former SWP members, to form such an organization, during the 1980's, the North Star Network, was nothing more than a personality cult around the late Peter Camejo. Why will Proyect's alternative be different?
Conclusion
Speaking for myself, I'm of the opinion that the entire left, all organizations as well as individuals, failed to understand the signifcance and impact of the "Great Recession." The entire US left regards the suffering and deprivation resulting from the economic down turn of 2008 as just one issue among many.
This is hardly surprising. Issues of unemployment and poverty have traditionaly been the Achilles heel of the U.S. Left. Anarchists in the San Francisco Bay Area don't even believe that involuntary poverty and unemployment exists among native born workers. Others on the left believe that Bill Clinton resolved all the contradictions of capitalism. I submit that this failure, more than any organizational formula is the main explanation for the marginalization of the U.S. left.
For further reading:
http://socialistworker.org/2014/02/19/a-response-to-slander
http://externalbulletin.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/we-are-expelled/
http://kasamaproject.org/threads/entry/killing-lenin-again-the-conscious-crusade-against-left-security-culture
http://redguarddude.blogspot.com/2014/02/leftists-against-left.html
Sunday, February 16, 2014
Leftists Against the Left
Leftist cyber space has been engaged in a debate the last week, involving leaked preconvention documents from the International Socialist Organization (ISO). For the benefit of those who aren't aware, many left organizations, including the ISO, have an internal discussion several months before their scheduled convention. As a general rule, these written, nowadays, generally online documents, reflect what the membership wants to be discussed, voted on, and adopted at the convention. In most cases these documents are for members only. This is the case with the ISO.
Ross Wolfe, an enemy of the organized left, who publishes an online blog, somehow got access to and published, preconvention documents, for the ISO convention scheduled, February 15-17, Not content with just publishing the documents for the current convention, Wolfe, also posted all the documents from previous conventions beginning with 2011.
In an article, Leaking Internal ISO Docs: A Question of Revolutionary Ethics, at the Kasama Project website, Mike Ely criticizes Wolfe for leaking the documents. As a result of the debate generated by that article, Ely published a follow up article, Killing Lenin Again: Conscious Trolling Against Left Security Culture.
The links to both articles along with other links will be posted at the end of this article, and I would encourage everyone to read both articles, and also the comments. Those who support the outing of the ISO documents appear to be motivated by the belief, that members of a revolutionary organization should be denied the right to have internal discussions to plan perspectives and how to carry out their objectives. In the name of democracy, ironically.
Two of the most strident opponents of leftist organizations having members only discussion are leftist cyber wannabe sage Louis Proyect, and his trusty, not so comical side kick, Joaquin Bustelo. Proyect has a web site, Unrepentant Marxist, and is moderator of the online discussion list, Grumpy Old Man Mail (aka Marxmail). Bustelo is best known for calling for the destruction of cadre type left organizations, and for giving a bad name to Assholeism. Bustelo also appears to be of the opinion, based on earlier articles and comments in other forums, that involuntary poverty and unemployment no longer exist, at least among native born workers, in his beloved America.
In a comment, following the second article Proyect makes the outrageous claim that revolutionary socialists have no reason to fear being victimized on the job or denied employment for political reasons. Yes, no one in the good ol' US of A ever gets fired for political reasons. Well, actually, with the possible exception of those who have been fired for political reasons. As a matter of fact, Proyect's co-thinker, Bustelo, not his real name, uses a pseudonym in order to protect himself from being victimized on the job.
Why has the ISO been singled out for attack, by those opposed to the existence of revolutionary socialist organizations? The answer is because the ISO is the largest such group in the U.S.
Debate among leftist over political differences, is of course legitimate. What is not legitimate is calling for the destruction of a revolutionary socialist organization, simply because of it's very existence.What is not legitimate is attempting to deny members of such organizations the democratic right to determine the policies and program of their own organization, to include members only discussion. What is not legitimate, is the demand that policies and programs of left groups should be determined by non members.
The organized left has been too tolerant toward those calling for the destruction of revolutionary socialist organizations, by those claiming to be part of the left. It is time to toughen up and to recognize such individuals as the enemy, and to treat them accordingly. By any means necessary.
http://kasamaproject.org/threads/entry/leaking-internal-iso-docs-a-question-of-revolutionary-ethics
http://kasamaproject.org/threads/entry/killing-lenin-again-the-conscious-crusade-against-left-security-culture
http://louisproyect.org
www.socialistworker.org
http://externalbulletin.wordpress.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)