I think I am going to stir up some controversy with this! But its a good piece to think about.
----------------------
Originally from internationalism.org
The bourgeois state of Chavez attacks the steel workers
The Chávez government - with the support of the opposition and unions- has unleashed repression against the workers of the Steel Zone of Venezuela who are struggling for their most basic necessities. Here we see the real Senor Chávez and his "socialism of the 21st century".
Here we are publishing a leaflet distributed by our comrades of Internacionalismo in Venezuela. We salute their effort to do this in very difficult conditions of repression and Chavist blackmail. We want to express our solidarity with the workers of the area and with our comrades and call on others to distribute and discuss this leaflet. The struggle of the proletariat is international and must confront all the forms of the bourgeois state, be they "liberal", open dictatorships or wearing the mask of "Socialism".
The bourgeois state of Chávez attacks the metal workers
After more than 13 months of discussion of their collective contract, the steel workers at Ternium-SIDOR have had enough. Indignant about the starvation wages they receive (near to the minimum salary, in one of the regions of Venezuela with the highest cost of living) and the deplorable working conditions that have lead to the deaths of 18 workers and left dozens ill from industrial illness over less than a decade, they have carried out several strikes against the firm's refusal to meet their demands about wages and working conditions.
Various parts of the media have echoed the firm's campaign of victimisation, claiming that their demands amount to more than the firm's annual sales. These lies form part of a "black out" of information, both from the opposition media and the official media, about the true causes of the metal workers' struggles. Since the 1990's these workers have been subjected to a policy of cuts in pay and working conditions, introduced through the programme of restructuring, that has led to their benefits being lower than other workers in the region. The metalworkers' struggle is about a decent level of living. They know that if they accept the company's terms and conditions[1] they will suffer more than two years of miserable increases in their wages and benefits, whilst the price of food and the cost of living increases by more than 30% annually, according to the none too reliable figures of the Central Bank of Venezuela. Another important demand of the movement is to make the contracted workers (who make up 75% of the workforce of 1,600) permanent, since this will give them better benefits. Thus, the struggle of the SIDOR workers is expressing the discontent and uncertainty that dominates the workers in the region and the whole country, faced with the endless increase in the price of food and cost of living generally, along with precarious working conditions.
Likewise, the metalworkers have had enough of the bickering between representatives of the company, government and unions. The latter in particular have progressively undermined the initial demands of the movement (the unions are now "demanding" 50 Bolivars a day, whereas at the beginning of negotiations it was 80). Having fulfilled all of the requirements for going on strike, they took part in the high level commission formed by the nefarious triumvirate. Whilst these gentlemen discussed behind the workers' backs, the workers themselves assembled at the steel work's doors and decided to carry out several stoppages, the most important of these being that of the 12th March for 80 hours which expressed the radicalisation of the movement. They did not have to wait long for the firm and the state to respond: on the 14th March the National Guard and police unleashed a furious repression, leaving more than 15 workers injured and 53 arrested. With this repressive action the Chávez government has unmasked itself in front of the workers: it cast aside its "workers" uniform and put on its true uniform, that of the defence of the interests of the national capital. It is not the first time that the "workers and socialist" state has attacked workers' struggle for their own demands: we only need to mention for example, the terrible repression meted out to oil workers last year who were struggling to improve their working conditions.
The SUTISS union is also part of the repression of the workers (despite union leaders suffering repression), since its role is to act as a fireman in the movement. It tries to put itself at the head of the movement whilst negotiating a reduction in the wage demand.
Referendum and nationalisation: new traps for the movement
Faced with the workers' intransigence, they have pulled another trick from up their sleeve: the holding of a referendum in order to consult each worker about their agreement or not with the firm's proposals. Promoted by the Chavist minister of Labour (a Trotskyist or ex-Trotskyist), the proposal has already received the agreement of the SUTISS, though with certain "conditions". Class instinct has led several workers to reject this trap, which is aimed at undermining the sovereign assemblies (where the real strength of the working class is expressed) by turning each worker into a "citizen", who will have to define himself for or against the firm and state in isolation by means of the ballot box!! Faced with this the workers need to affirm themselves through their sovereign assemblies.
Another trap used against the movement is the proposition by the unions and various "revolutionary" sectors of Chavism to renationalise SIDOR, which is mainly owned by Argentine capital (the Venezuelan state owns 20% of the shares). This campaign could be a disaster for the struggle, since the workers have no choice but to confront the capitalists, be they Argentine or Venezuelan state bureaucrats. Nationalisation does not mean the disappearance of exploitation; the state-boss, even with a "worker's" face, has no other option than to permanently try to attack workers' wages and working conditions. The left of capital presents the concentration of companies in the hands of the state as a quick way to "socialism", hiding one of the fundamental lessons of marxism: the state is the representative of the interests of each national bourgeoisie, and therefore the enemy of the proletariat. The Chavist bourgeoisie today is the head of the state which is seeking to increase the amount of surplus value it can gain, and in the name of "Bolivarian socialism" massively increases the level of precariousness of work through the missions and jointly managed companies (as happened with the workers of Invepal or Inveval).
These "Bolivarian revolutionaries" try to make the workers forget that for many years SIDOR was a state firm, and that they have had to struggle at various ties against the high rank bureaucrats of the state who administered it and their forces of repression, struggling for their own demands but also against the unions (the allies of capital in the factories). At the beginning of the 70's during the first Caldera government, this included burning down part of the installations of the CTV in Caracas in response to its anti-worker actions.
The state has been in the hands of the Chavists since 1999, but has not magically lost its capitalist character. All that has changed are its clothes, which now have a "socialist" colouring; but it is still a fundamental organ in the defence of the interests of capital against those of labour. The fact that Chávez presents himself as a "Sidorist" or a "worker" when it suits him should not confuse us about the class character of the Chavist government, which capital put in place in order to defend its system of exploitation as it sinks deeper and deeper into crisis. The workers are not so stupid as to believe these "revolutionaries" who put forwards the panacea of "re-nationalisation", but who live like bourgeois, earning salaries 30 times or more than the official minimum wage.
The only way to win: real workers' solidarity and solidarity with the population
The only way that this movement can succeed is through looking for solidarity. Initially with the contract workers, where the demand to make them permanent is one of the principle expressions of solidarity; but it is no less important to win the solidarity of workers in other branches of industry, at the regional or national level, since whether we work in the state sector or the private sector, we are all being hit by the blows of the economic crisis. It is also necessary to express solidarity with the population of Guayana, where the unemployed are affected by the high cost of living, and by the problems that the state cannot resolve, such as delinquency, housing, etc. However, this solidarity cannot be carried out through the unions, since they are the main organs for controlling the struggle, creating divisions between different industries and sectors, and in the last instance, complementing state repression; neither can solidarity with the local population be left in the hands of the social organisations created by the state, such as the communal councils. Solidarity must be "generated" by the workers themselves, through assemblies open to other workers.
The struggle of the metalworkers is our struggle, because they are fighting for a decent life, for the benefit of the whole of the proletariat. But the best benefit, apart for the momentary increase in the level of wages, resides in the development of consciousness of the strength that the proletariat has in its own hands, outside of the unions and the other institutions invented by the state in order to control social discontent.
The national bourgeoisie know that the situation in Guyana is intensely dangerous to its interests. The concentration of workers in this region and their experience of past struggles makes it very explosive, since at the same time there is a wider accumulation of labour and social discontent which has existed for some time due to the attacks on employment and workers' living conditions. In this sense, the so-called Metal Zone has a potential for transforming itself into a focal point for the workers' struggle in the country, as happened in the 60's and 70's.
The SIDOR workers have taken the only road possible for confronting the attacks of capital, that of the struggle. Spreading the fight to other branches of regional and national production, whilst looking for solidarity from the population as a whole: this is the road that will enable the Venezuelan proletariat to become part of an international movement for the overthrow capital and the creation of a real socialist society.
25.03.2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Much of this is nonsense, but I was very interested in the ICC's proposed solution. I struggled to keep down my dinner reading through this thing, eventually finding this gem near the end:
"The only way to win: real workers' solidarity and solidarity with the population. The only way that this movement can succeed is through looking for solidarity."
Oh! Well then! Tall we have to do? Wow! That was easy. Let's check out the details about how that's done:
"[T]his solidarity cannot be carried out through the unions, since they are the main organs for controlling the struggle, creating divisions between different industries and sectors, and in the last instance, complementing state repression; neither can solidarity with the local population be left in the hands of the social organisations created by the state, such as the communal councils. Solidarity must be "generated" by the workers themselves, through assemblies open to other workers."
Jeepers! Why didn't we think of that? Wow, such specifics! Such detail! Give me a break. The ICC is full of anarchistic bullshit, with fantasies of direct worker control over every sector of society itself. The ICC sees the existance of *any* form of state control as corrupt, but then they come with this weak-ass solution -- workers just need to have solidarity. No shit.
Excuse my language, but I'm sick of ideological attacks masked as objective analysis of Venesuela -- on both the right and the so-called communist left. The ICC condemns all forms of democratic socialism (including what Chavez calls "21st century socialism"). How is it possible then for the ICC to offer objective analysis?
And their so-called solution -- "solidarity" -- how vague. Just what the fuck is this supposed to mean in the context of REAL people's struggles against capitalism? This is not a game of abstractions! The ICC is a quasi-fascist organization, attacking every socialist movement as counter-revolutionary except its own. Their garbage makes me sick to my stomach...and I just ate dinner...
Wow tex, calm down.
Regardless of all the disagreements you have with the ICC's political line (and what you are criticizing is essentially a strawman, because the ICC comes from the Communist Left, and are not anarchists), the issue here is that Chavez sent down the National Guard to shoot down striking workers, something that you curiously didn't address.
Characterizing the Chavez regime Venesuela as a capitalist bourgeois state -- undifferentiated from its previous regime -- is beyond nonsense, somewhere between sheer poppycock and horseshit.
Claiming something does not necessarily make it so. The ICC can claim what it wants, but its stated philosophy includes this garbage about ALL and ANY form of state control of the means of production -- in fact, the very existance of the state itself -- is a violation of worker solidarity. Their solution: "worker solidary" and worker direct control of the means of production. This is mirrors the worst anarchistic, utopian bullshit floating around in so-called leftist circles.
But what's more significant here is that this "critique" by the ICC reflects a long-established trend of this group to attack any and all attempts at socialism in the 21st century. I challenge you to find any form of socialist struggles by any nation on the plant. Whether this South America or the Caribbean, or Asia, or wherever, the ICC quickly condemns any steps toward socialism in favor of "solidarity with the workers." If you're for solidarity of the workers, how about useful analysis for the steps that need to be taken for the realization of socialism -- instead of vague proclaimations of "solidarity."
As for workers being shot down, I'll have to look into this for myself, since the article also expressed "solidarity" with oil workers who twice labored to overthrow the democratically elected Chavez administration (something curiosly absent in your commentary).
The Bolivarian Revolution is not immune to critique, but any critique must start with the proper analysis. The ICC is full of shit and unworthy of serious commentary. Their attacks on anything resembling socialism makes them suspect, at best.
Again, all of this is a witch-strawman you are burning at the stake. It has nothing to do with the position of the ICC.
The "Communist Left" started as the left wing of the Comintern, with the Dutch, German, Some elements of the British, and the Italian section (sinistra italiana). While there where some pretty anarchic elements, particularly some elements of the german/dutch council communists, some others, like the "sinistra italiana" were ultra-leninist and had some very authoritarian conceptions of the revolution.
I don't think the Communist Left was ever defined by its opposition to the state - perhaps the bourgeois state, but not "anti-statism" in the way anarchists do. The most defining character tic of them is probably their intransingent internationalism, like opposition to all capitalist wars, including national liberation. In fact, in the periods of the deepest counterrevolution, 1939-1945, the left communists, and perhaps a few anarchists, were the only ones that opposed both sides of WII. The Marx-Lenin-Luxembourg front were shot crying "world revolution". Marc Chirik and his small group of left communists in France where thrown to jail by stalinists and almost executed because of their opposition.
The ICC doesn't thinks Chavez is capitalist for something as simplistic and liberal as the “existance of the state”. The ICC thinks the Venezuelan state is bourgeois because there hasn't been a workers 'revolution, private property exists, the state shoots down striking workers, and quite simply, a state cannot just turn revolutionary without a revolution done by the working class. Parliamentary maneauveuring is always going to be constrained by international and national capital. That is the fact, and that is why Chavez sent the national guard to shoot down workers that were striking against a private enterprise.
I am not sure about what really happened with the petroleum workers. I just know there was a strike a while ago. Anyway, Bordiga said once “in what concerns us as marxists, to hell with democracy, to hell with the state!”. And Bordiga was one of the main historical leaders of left communism, so maybe the ICC is coming from that perspective.
If you think the ICC is lying about the National Guard, just google "National Guard" and "SIDOR", there are loads of webpages about that.
Your response simply highlights my basic point:
"The ICC thinks the Venezuelan state is bourgeois because there hasn't been a workers 'revolution, private property exists, the state shoots down striking workers, and quite simply, a state cannot just turn revolutionary without a revolution done by the working class."
All this rests on the presupposition that 1) it really matters what the ICC thinks, and 2) Venezuela is obliged to practice socialism in a manner consistent with the ICC's ideology. Neither presupposition is right or relevant to oppressed people's struggles for socialism in Venezuela or anywhere else in the world today.
Do you REALLY think that Venezuela is a state that wantonly, randomly shoots down striking workers? Do your REALLY think this is standard practice in a country that elected a democratic socialist, and reinstalled him by force when the CIA conspired with oil workers to overthrow him? [See "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised;" there's a free copy on the Internet] Do your really think that a Venezuelan working and unworking class that formed a mass movement to reinstall its president now lacks the ability, should he engage in excesses, to remove him?
As Tariq Ali noted recently, if the Venezuelan masses have the power to install and then reinstall its president in the face of a CIA-backed coup de ta, they certainly have the power to get rid of him if ever and whenever they deem it necessary. The ICC has a totalitarian political philosophy, and selectively highlights things helpful for bringing their philosophy into reality.
But there’s a more pressing, more critical issue revealed (perhaps inadvertently) in your last post. Pressing and critical, since it cuts to the core of what MSU YDS is all about. The ICC, with its arrogant vanguard-ism and juvenile griping about Chavez being elected by the working class instead of being violently installed by the working class, has little neither respect nor use for democracy. You follow suit, quoting Bordiga’s dismissal of democracy itself. And this is the problem. MSU YDS is a democratic socialist organization. This nomenclature is a broad, sometimes nebulous concept, but at root is a basic commitment to one essential principle: democracy.
Socialism cannot exist without democracy. Democracy without socialism is impossible. We call ourselves democratic socialists precisely because of we embrace this commitment. Failure and human atrocity flowed freely after every attempt -- as the ICC advocates -- of self-proclaimed vanguard movements to impose socialism from above rather than socialism from below. Socialism doesn’t exist in the ICC’s ideological vacuum, and it’s not limited to cliché rhetoric of violent revolution over democratic elections and reform. More than that, socialism is a fundamental social relation, the proximity of workers to true freedom, equality, dignity, and -- yes -- democracy. Perhaps this is where, dear comrade, you and I differ. I am committed to the struggle for democratic socialism. With your constant references to Bodega and other things, you seem invested in something else.
And I respect this difference of perspective, and have the utmost respect for your ideas and contribution. I simply disagree with you, and have good reason for doing so.
Post a Comment