From: michael a. lebowitz (mlebowit@sfu.ca)
Date: Wed Mar 12 2003 - 09:10:00 EST
Dear friends and comrades,
My learning curve is pretty steep at this time in relation to
developments in Venezuela (and I definitely appreciate Rakesh's link for
Bernard Mommer's paper with his points about the earlier effective
privatisation of the oil industry there). I can pass on to anyone who is
interested, however, a translated chapter of Marta Harnecker's book on
Chavez, based on interviews with him; this is also on the Argentine
website, www.rebelion.com, that has a page for her. The Znet page for 'Life
after Capitalism' has the paper (in Spanish only) on Venezuela which she
presented at the Z Magazine sessions for WSF at Porte Alegre.
'Venezuela: the way forward?' I assume that Jerry's title was not
meant to ask if Venezuela is 'the' new model but, rather, if it is going
forward. From what I understand, I'd say there is no question that it is.
It's definitely not a socialist revolution, though, and whether it will
become one remains to be seen. Marta's comment in the latter piece is that
if we mean by revolution the nationalisation of the means of production,
etc, there is no revolution but if we mean the development of revolutionary
subjects, then there is a revolution. My provisional grasp is that there
has been a very significant development of consciousness among the poor
(identified regularly as 80% of the population) but that group (peasants
and workers in the informal sector in particular) is not (yet) a class
acting for itself; Chavez and the military are critical in this context in
acting on their behalf--- but always, via Chavez, trying to activate the
poor into self-movement. The natural governing strata, which continues to
permeate the state apparatus, on the other hand, is intensely politicised
and well-financed (by the usual suspects). In this sense, one might
describe this as a case of dual power--- something very visible when you
see the control of the streets of parts of Caracas by the metropolitan
police (even though the army continues to occupy their police stations).
I have lots of questions about what is happening in the economy
and what the government goals are, and I hope to meet with people this week
who can give me some answers. At this point, it looks like the goals are,
on paper, relatively modest--- a return to an import-substitution model
based upon a very significant change in the distribution of income. This
focus, which corresponds to Lula's election programme in Brazil, involves
an explicit rejection of neoliberalism's model of globalisation; and the
momentum that emerges as this aspect becomes more pointed may be
significant. Certainly, there seems to be no question that last April's
coup and its defeat contributed enormously to popular consciousness and to
'putting the sword into the hands of the Social Revolution' (Marx). I
think, too, that a successful and well-attended solidarity forum here in
April will also contribute to the sense that they are not alone in this
struggle.
One brief point in relation to John's comment. Unlike the cases he
outlined, Chavez did not come to power in a coup. He was elected and he
continues to stress the democratic and constitutional path. At this point,
this greatly constrains what the government can do, which is a source of
(temporary?) weakness but at the same time is, in the concrete
circumstances, essential to their strength (as the numbers who carry their
little blue book, the constitution, would suggest).
in solidarity,
mike
At 19:14 09/03/2003 +0200, you wrote:
>Following Jerry’s [8565]:
>
>It seems to me also that the situation in Venezuela resembles to what had
>been
>described by Trotsky and Lenin as Dual Power. However, the Iranian
>Revolution,
>as well other cases from the past call us to be very cautious with what may
>underlie a Dual Power expressed on the political or state level: It is not
>necessarily on the one hand the block of bourgeoisie social forces,
>challenged
>by the proletarian or popular forces (aiming at an anti-capitalist class
>power)
>on the other. It may well be a severe hegemony crisis expressed (erupting
>itself) in a fatal fight between two bourgeoisie forms of power (or
>strategies), each one forming coalitions with different popular classes or
>strata. I do not have any idea of the actual situation in Venezuela.
>(However,
>I very much esteem the theoretical and political views of Marta Harnecker and
>other comrades who support Chaves). I am asking this question simply
>because it
>seems to me that coups like the ones of Naser in Egypt, Sadam in Iraq
>etc., or
>revolutions (TYPICALLY TAKING PLACE AFTER A PERIOD OF DUAL POWER) like the
>one
>of Khomeini in Iran were not anti-capitalist revolutions but political
>reshufflings expressing the interests of pre-industrial capitalist forces
>(the
>BAZAAR), or/and state capitalism.
>
>Comradely,
>
>John M.
---------------------
Michael A. Lebowitz
Professor Emeritus
Economics Department
Simon Fraser University
Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6
Currently in Cuba. Can be reached at:
Michael Lebowitz
c/o MEPLA
Calle 13 No. 504 ent. D y E, Vedado, La Habana, Cuba
Codigo Postal 10 4000
(537) 33 30 75 or 832 21 54
telefax: (537) 33 30 75
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 13 2003 - 00:00:01 EST