[Marxism] RE: Venezuela's Left comes together,

David Walters dwalters at marxists.org
Wed Aug 10 11:19:24 MDT 2005


Louis:
You can't make this stuff up. And who said that Trotskyists don't have a
sense of humor?

Of course! That whole discussion was a blast and cyber-funnies at  
it's best. Of course, anyone who actually WANTS to look through the  
a.p.s.t. archives...oh my god!

You also stated:
"After David left the SWP, he opted to join the tiny
Lambertist organization in the USA. For me this would be like jumping  
from
the firing pan into the fire, but what do I know."

Well, not a lot evidently. I joined SOCIALIST ACTION, and not  
SOCIALIST ORGANIZER, which lead the anti-war/anti-intervention  
movement on the West Coast after the SWP decided to abstain from  
building anti-war actions. SA carried on the best traditions of the  
SWP after the SWP left the field open to the WWP. I joined S.  
Organizer 10 years later. Of course leave to Lou to personalize his  
straw-man polemics...a las...

At least Joaquín responds politically and more seriously, and I thank  
him for that.

OK, so this new group appears outside the Chavista movement...or  
presents itself as not politically and/or organizationally tied to  
it. But clearly it is still "part" of the revolutionary process or it  
couldn't go anywhere. In your polemic against the group in the link  
you provided (in response to David Keil's positing of the  
announcement of it's formation) it seems, Joaquín, seriously, that  
you are more at issue with the ISO's own confused, or perceived  
confused, positions, homogenizing the groups own positions with that  
of the ISO's. Truthfully, I don't know about the group or it's  
politics or 'where it places itself', like I stated in my previous  
post, I only know some of the positions and actions of some of the  
UNT leaders who make up part of this current.

You raise a bigger, more important issue, and that's how to define  
"Chavism" in general and how this relates to the revolutionary  
process, and what it means. Unlike in Cuba where we had the July 26th  
Movement as the clear, *disciplined* leadership of the revolution  
that it lead there is no such analogy in Venezuela except through the  
lineage of the officers movement that Chavez lead in the Venezuelan  
Army. Everything appears to be new, reactive to the coming to power  
of Chavez and his leadership in mobilizing the masses behind his  
program. This explains, in large part, why there is no ONE  
organizational manifestation politically of the Revolution except  
through the relatively undefined "Chavista" mobilizations which, I  
can am sure, everyone who is not part of the counter-revolution, is  
part of whether they describe them selves as "under the discipline of  
Hugo Chavez" or not.

In the course of the Revolution, I believe Chavez made some errors,  
mostly around the issue of the unions. He had made an attempt to  
corporatize the unions under the state, during the Constituent  
Assembly days. His own supporters, in large part, *defeated* Chavez  
in this. It's something the contra-CTV initially used to organize  
workers against the revolution early on. This struggle, in a way,  
continues over the fierce debates inside the UNT over WHAT the UNT is  
supposed to be. A current inside the Bolivarian Workers Front (and  
not the whole front) have taken up what some inside the Chavista  
movement (Chavez himself? I don't really know) but includes the likes  
of Margaret Honeker and some of the Social-Forum types, to push to  
make the UNT a "union of the whole people" that would allow the  
leadership of the UNT to be elected by "all the people of Venezuela"  
regardless of their membership in the union, or even what class they  
might be members of. It's way of diluting what a union is supposed to  
be, or even destroying it as a union of the workers as a class. At  
any rate, this is one of the issues as to why  "being a Chavista" is  
far more complex than just holding high a photo of Chavez an stating  
one's allegiance to him.

The UNT, as should be obvious, is divided over this issue. It's  
divided over many issues, including "self-management" "co- 
determination" and what this means. It has divided the BWF (which  
itself is just ONE sector of the UNT) and divided the UNT. I'm not  
sure, but the organization of this new party may be or may not be  
just a very small part of the continual process of development of the  
revolutionary forces in Venezuela. That it fails to pay fealty to  
Chavism is of minor importance, it is, how they stand with regard to  
the revolutionary process as a whole. I believe, as Chavez himself as  
demonstrated, that the revolution is big enough include all forces  
that stand with the revolution.

Personally, I'm waiting for more information: talks with Stalin Perez  
Borge, a UNT Directorship member who will be on tour next month in  
California and people returning from the World Youth Festival in  
Caracas.

David



More information about the Marxism mailing list