--- jthorn65 at sbcglobal.net wrote:
> unless capitalism's
> definition has now broadened to include state
> ownership of natural resources and large industries,
State ownership does stand in contradiction to capitalism. State ownership *can* be an aspect of socialism, if the state is used as a tool to supress the law of value. Socialism is a slippery concept, but I would say that you have socialism if there is a definite move in the direction of communism, i.e. the abolition of value form, the state, and social classes.
The historical workers movement, by not following closely enough Marx's mature critique of political economy, too often made ownership a defining criterion for the question "is it capitalism or socialism?"
But the core defining category of the society of generalized commodity production is the value form.
> I'm excited about his experiments in workers
> participation in the allocation of resources will
> work in the
> aluminium mills and paper mills where it is being
> tried out.
This sounds very interesting. Again, I don't think workers control is a sufficient criterion for saying "socialism." One could also have a worker-owned and controlled firm which produces commodities for exchange on the market. It may be a "nicer" form of capitalism, but it is still capitalism.
Again, the question is intent. Is Chavez moving towards communism? The question itself is meaningless without a worldwide movement for communism. And as Yoshie never tires of telling us, the international left is meaningless. Without a large, mass, international movement for communism, it makes no sense to demand that Venezuela move toward it.
What Chavez, Morales, Castro, et al are doing is fighting for survival, while also promoting some nice redistributive measures to benefit social layers that have been suffering for a long time.
Certainly, to the extent that it is possible, one should oppose any attempt by the powerful nation-states to harm Venezuela. To be honest, I think the fact that this has not been done has less to do with the left in the great power countries than with the fact that the U.S. is currently tied down in Iraq. The situation in Iraq is keeping the "Bolivaran revolution" alive.
Chuck's criticisms of Chavez is empty rhetoric. But those who see Chavez as the hope bearer for socialism are engaging in wishful thinking.
Emancipatory social forces are irrelevant worldwide. What most people are trying to do is survive. People do whatever they need to survive. To say "support" or "oppose" this is what Carrol is always calling sandbox politics.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com