> 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. [JT]
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. [AN]
No one said worker control alone is a sufficient criteria for calling Venezuela socialist. Taken as a whole however Chavez is more than just mouthing empty platitudes about socialism. You can't make the transition overnight so claiming Venezuela isn't strictly socialist right now is a completely empty statement.
Certainly workers participatory decision making as an economic mechanism in the allocation of resources and consumption instead of relying on market forces as well as collective farming and state appropriation of some major manufacturers and resources with more expected cannot be called the left wing of capitalism without doing serious damage to the definition of capitalism. I don't think Chavez is moving towards communism and IIRC he has stated as much. He is a socialist. He is not exactly alone, much of South America is receiving help in eliminating their IMF loans with an eye towards possibly heading down the road to socialism.
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. [AN]
They are doing more than this. [JT]
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. [AN]
Sure the situation in Iraq is helping Venezuela, nobody would claim otherwise. I don't think the left in other countries has anything to do with thwarting attempts to undermine Venezuela. Why would I or anyone make this claim?
There is no wishful thinking involved. I do not claim to know how successful Venezuela's socialist experiment will be but how do you know it will not succeed? Any mass movement has to start somewhere. Venezuela may or may not be that place. I'm not betting on it but betting against it is prematurely defeatist. Certainly the odds don't favor Venezuela's experiment being a rousing success but unless you believe it will never happen why be so certain this will fail? Why can't a worldwide social movement start in Venezuela? NIt is absolutely guaranteed that no one knows when or where such a movement will start and it's a safe bet that whenever and wherever it starts there will be several people predicting a failure in the early stages. Why don't we wait and see how things go before making any predictions. It is way to early to determine anything about how the Venezuelan experiment will turn out.
John Thornton