Workers' Liberty

[quote]Workers Power has long denounced anyone who belongs to the Labour Party, even when they’ve been involved with struggles against the leadership (e.g. McDonnell campaign) and for the unions to assert their power inside the party.[/quote]

We have always made it clear that the Labour left is a dead end however we critically supported the McDonnell campaign in as much as he was trying to make a stand against Browns and Blairs policies. The fact he sunk before he even got close to entering the race speaks volumes about the current state of any attempt to reclaim Labour.

[quote]But now these rrr-revolutionaries advocate that socialists and trade unionists join the PSUV[/quote]

The PSUV is in the process of being created, it has over 5 million members, there will be debates across the country on its programme and principles of course this represents a real opportunity for revolutionaries to intervene and make their case that whilst some of Chavez's policies are supportable, the working class must organise independently of the state (and its leader!)

We do not doubt that the life span of socialists within the PSUV would be short, Chavez has already made it clear that the new party will "not be a Bolshevik/Marxist-Leninst party", but it would be sectarian to abstain from this process. Of course Trotsky wrote about Marxists involvement in popular fronts as long as the end goal was to split them along class lines. The remainders of the PRS have set up an Independent workers party, which would be hopelessly lost in the sidelines of the present political debate which is taking place in the PSUV - how can the revolution go forward? What role does the working class play? How can we fight for 21st century socialism?

[quote]hat about a debate, I said, putting the two sides head to head. Why don’t you debate with the AWL over Venezuela?[/quote]
So you only come to a debate if you are given a place on the platform? We are more than happy for AWL members to come and take part in the debate, but why only debate you on the question? If that is your logic, we should organise a panel of Socialist Appeal, SWP, AWL and so on, not an appealing prospect! Anyway as you have said we agree on the analysis of the Bonapartism of Chavez, so the only topical debate we could have would be a tactical one over going into the PSUV or not - not a crowd puller I think!

Paul you must have found it like looking in a mirror, everything the same merely revesed. Have you asked Clive what his position is now in relation to the PSUV. He previously argued that it should be uincontroversial that socialists should work in such a party which attracted the support of such large numbers of workers as does the PSUV, that attracted the support of the Trade UNions as the PSUV does etc.

I think Clive Bradley’s approach stated here is spot on.

"If we are agreed that Chavez is Bonapartist; that we should be critical (and I think though the tone of criticism is important, it's important to remember we aren't in Venezuela, and the main thing is to get the analysis right, rather than the tone of it); and that Venezuelan workers should be independent of Chavez, I don't think the disagreements are very strong. (I also think that were it to be true that the majority of unions and workers signed up for Chavez' party, and were it possible for socialists to do work in it, it would be entirely uncontroversial that they should do so. The question would be with what perspective, etc."

Arthur Bough

Paul refers to the fact that the PSUV is being organised from the top down as an example of Chaves’s Bonapartism. This charge has been made against other leaders and organisations in the past. IN particular, it was made by Martov against Lenin in the way Lenin proposed bringing together all the disparate socialist groups in Russia into a single social-democratic party. Here Lenin replies to Martov’s opportunism.

“Perhaps the only attempt to analyse the concept bureaucracy is the distinction drawn in the new Iskra (No. 53) between the “formal democratic principle” (author’s italics) and the “formal bureaucratic principle”. This distinction (which, unfortunately, was no more developed or explained than the reference to the non-Iskra-ists) contains a grain of truth. Bureaucracy versus democracy is in fact centralism versus autonomism; it is the organisational principle of revolutionary Social-Democracy as opposed to the organisational principle of opportunist Social-Democracy. The latter strives to proceed from the bottom upward, and, therefore, wherever possible and as far as possible, upholds autonomism and “democracy”, carried (by the overzealous) to the point of anarchism. The former strives to proceed from the top downward, and upholds an extension of the rights and powers of the centre in relation to the parts. In the period of disunity and separate circles, this top from which revolutionary Social-Democracy strove to proceed organisationally was inevitably one of the circles, the one enjoying most influence by virtue of its activity and its revolutionary consistency (in our case, the Iskra organisation). In the period of the restoration of actual Party unity and dissolution of the obsolete circles in this unity, this top is inevitably the Party Congress, as the supreme organ of the Party; the Congress as far as possible includes representatives of all the active organisations, and, by appointing the central institutions (often with a membership which satisfies the advanced elements of the Party more than the backward and is more to the taste of its revolutionary than its opportunist wing), makes them the top until the next Congress. Such, at any rate, is the case among the Social-Democratic Europeans, although little by little this custom, so abhorrent in principle to anarchists, is beginning to spread—not without difficulty and not without conflicts and squabbles—to the Social-Democratic Asiatics.”

Lenin “One Step Forward Two Steps Back” p 192-3

Lenin’s opponents like Martov accused him of being a super-centre, of utilising the party machinery to bully the organisation, of wanting to establish himself as a form of dictator over the party, indeed of Bonapartism. Lenin replies to the specifics in the above pamphlet, by looking not at such personal characteristics, but at the politics of the debates, and decisions taken.

In response to the charge of Bonapartism he replies,

“But there was one phrase of Comrade Martov’s that I particularly liked. That was the phrase “Bonapartism of the worst type”. I find that Comrade Martov has brought in this category very appropriately. Let us examine dispassionately what the concept implies. In my opinion, it implies acquiring power by formally legal means, but actually in defiance of the will of the people (or of a party). Is that not so Comrade Martov? And if it is, then I may safely leave it to the public to judge who has been guilty of this “Bonapartism of the worst type”: Lenin and Comrade Y[13], who might have availed themselves of their formal right not to admit the Martovites, but did not avail themselves of it, though in doing so they would have been backed by the will of the Second Congress—or those who occupied the editorial board by formally legitimate means (“unanimous co-optation”), but who knew that actually this was not in accordance with the will of the Second Congress and who are afraid to have this will tested at the Third Congress. —Lenin.

Arthur Bough

A little detail :
- Chavez is a bourgeois general, perhaps sympathetic by the fact he wants to hand off US imperialism from Venezuela and Latin America but he remains a general of a bourgeois army in a bourgeois state.

- Lenine was a leader of a workers' party named the POSDR in which he gained influence and authority not by the virtue of military discipline but by long and numerous internal political battles. Often, Lenine was in minority despite his faction was called "bolchevik". But he gained majority by the way of convincing party'members in a political manner.

- Chavez has more to see with the political tradition of Caudillism in Latin America, sign of the historical weakness of the local bourgeoisie. That tradition incorporates as well Peron as Castro or the peruvian military of the 70s. In other words, this has nothing to do with the independant workers' movement.

- All that bonapartist tradition has always been trying to organise the workers behind them not against...themselves ! This people are not mad and are very aware of their interests.

- Even if Chavez is giving many social benefits to venezuelan workers with the help of the oil's rente, that doesn't make him a "21st century bolchevik" but a clever bourgeois leader looking for securing his political base on a quite solid ground.

- The USA have no right to dictate their law in Venezuela but it doesn't flow from that point that workers must accept to be incorporated in the great "bolivarian army".

My point was not that Chavez is a Lenin - far from it, but that their is in reality no alternative when creating a Party from scratch but to do it from the top. My quote from Lenin was to make the point that it is only the Anarchists that believe that Parties can somehow arise spontaneously from below.

On Chavez. He does not hold his position as a result of being a General. IN fact he wasn't a General anyway, but an officer. He holds his position because he has won several democratic elections. The fact that he holds the position of President and was an army officer no more amkes him a Bonaparte than did the same fact make Eisenhower a Bonaparte. If we take Lenin's comment on what constitues Bonapartism as being the assumption of power by apparently legitimnate means, but against the will of the majority, how does this fit Chavez? It doesn't, he clearly holds power with the support of the majority, and has done so in several elections.

Bonapartist regimes are classified by TRotsky as of two types - those that are progressive, which reflect the emergence of some new dynamic for example Bismark, and those that are reactionary, which emerge because the existing productive relations are in crisis. In both cases the Bonapartist regime arises because the ruling class is weak either absolutely or relatively. This weakness means that the normal operation of its social pwoer, its representation within the hierarchy of the state apparatus, its means of social and ideological control are weak.

Is this true of Venezuela? No. It is a well established bouregois democracy in which the bouregoisie has exercised its rule through buregois democratic means for more than 50 years. The bourgeoisie socially and economically is strong and dominant. The bopuregoisie is well connected into the state apparatus by the usual economic, social, familial ties that are witnessed in other bouregois democracies. The bouregoisie remains ideologically dominant and able to exercise its influence through its ownership and ocntrol of a wide ranging mass media that operates freely and regularly criticises Chaves and his government, even to the extent of openly supporting the coup against him.

In Bonapartist regimes the politcal/governmental power and the state power are fused. Is this true of Venezuela? No its not true, and Chavez continually complains about having his measures frustrated by the state bureacracy, which is one of the reasons he has tried to build up alternatives to the state power such as the Communal Councils, and Workers Councils. Not only is it not true, but in fact besides the kind of attempts at frustration of Government policy that social democratic governments have opften witnessed by the capitalist state, this state even attempted to overthrow him via coup that was actually led by Generals.

There are certainly some elements of Bonapartism in Chavez, but no political system is a pure ideal type, and every Presidential system has elements of Bonapartism compare to Parliamentary systems. The more imnportant question is should Marxists stand aside from a very real mass movement of the working class occurring in the development of the PSUV, and simply whistle in the wind with their own irrelevantly small organisations, posting their Manifestos on the Town Hall wall as Trotsky criticised Galicia for doing in Mexico, and like organisations such as the SPGB did in Britain with the moves to establish the LP, or should they as Marx, Engels and Lenin and Trotsky advocated act as the left-Wing of such a movement, and in the process eductae the working class?
Arthur Bough

[quote]You won't debate us because your politics don't stand up to scrutiny, not because of some magic barometer of your modest "crowds"[/quote]

Well you would say that wouldn't you.

[quote]you don't advocate entry into a bourgeois workers party,[/quote]

We did in the past when there was a clear left wing which was attracting loads of workers (like in the 80's). The same can not be said for now.

[quote]but you are happy to support entry in a bourgeois party[/quote]
only to win the subjectively revolutionary workers away from it! Where are the subjectively revolutionary workers in Labour now?

[quote] You are simply adapting to a mood of pro-chavismo instead of advocating an independent working class political line[/quote]

Christ, have you even read any of our stuff? Try reading our latest journal article on it written earlier this year and our subsequent coverage in which we clearly outline an independent working class line - one that cannot ignore the fact that the PSUV exists and is hugely popular! We cannot go around it we must go through it in order to create what we want, a revolutionary party. Are we adapting to Chavismo? Not at all, any more than we adapted to reformism when we were in the Labour party before.

Chavez moves to democratise the economy and move power away from the state, whilst the military begins to organise against him.

Chavez has plans for Constitutional reform that would move power away from the state including reform of the military and into the community as this article on Venzuelanalysis indicates here.

Meanwhile sections of the military backed up by the bourgeois opposition parties are organising against him as this article indicates here.

Arthur Bough

Unfortunately most of the class concious, subjectively revolutionary workers, women and youth are currently under the illusion that the PSUV is a revolutionary party and Chavez is a revolutionary leader. If you deny that then I think you are denying reality, how else could they get nearly 6 million members within a few months? Like it or not going into a this new cross class party and fighting to break it along class lines is the best policy right now. Having a clear political message of the importance of working class independence would have a wide audience, I think you could gain an audience for that idea and win significant forces to that project. When Chavez goes to close you down for attacking the democratic capitalists, well that is when the fight comes to a point when it becomes necessary to know when to break the united front.

Anyway I have said enough on this now, I just wanted to say my piece to try and dispel some of the bombastic stuff from Paul.

I think you confuse subjective and objective. The workers are objectively revolutionary, but not necessarily at the moment subjectively revolutionary. Consequently, they could join the PSUV not because they beleive it to be a revolutionary party, but merely because they beleive it is the best means of achieving their immediate ends i.e. they might be happy to join a Party that is merely social-democratic in nature.

It does however seem difficult to deny that a Party that attracts such klarge numbers of workers, and not just the main Trade Unions, but even the more Left-wing unions is a Workers Party as defined by Marx and Engels, or to suggest therefore that Marx and Engels advice to Marxists to work in such Parties should be rejected, especially on the basis instead of marxists relating to some working class that does not in reality seem to exist other than in the mind of ultra-left sectarians who want to reject the real workers movement in order to be First Class Citizens in some "Workers Party" that the real workers do not recognise!

It is of course quite possible that Chavez will attack this or that workers struggle. His conception of socialist construction is statist like that of every other main socialist leader of the 20th century from Lenin to Clement Attlee, and therefore requires that workers struggles are constrained within the confines of the Plan of the socialist leaders, and not allowed to conflict and contradict it. He will for that reason not be alone as those leaders from Lenin to Attlee also attacked workers struggles when they were conducted independently and were seen as contrary to their vision of the way forward, sometimes as in the case of Attlee by police methods, at other times in the case of Lenin for example at Kronstadt rather more brutally.

Socialists should encourage workers to have no faith in such leaders and such top down methods of socialist construction, but should encourage them to rely on their own independent activity. That has nothing to do with the nature of the PSUV as a Workers Party or not, it merely tells us what Marxists should be saying to the workers organised within it, and why Marxists have to be in their in order to convey that message to them.
Arthur Bough

Paul often refers to the crimes of Stalinism in relation to Chiang Kai Shek in the Chinese Revolution, the fact that the Stalinists first gave support to Chiang, then when that didn't work out to a succession of other Chinese butchers of the working class.

Of course no one is arguing for support for Chavez in this way, no one is saying Marxists in Venezuela should subordinate themselves or workers interests to the bouregoisie or to Chavez, at least I am not. That is a different matter as to how Marxists relate to the real workers movement by speaking to the workers where they are rather than simply proclaiming themselves to be the Workers party and hoping workers rush to them. That is just ultra-leftism of the kind Lenin decried in left-Wing Communism.

But its interesting to contrast this Ultra-Leftism in Venzuela with the AWL's opportunism in Iraq, where a reliance is or has been placed not just on imperialism to provide a breathing space with the necessary requirement that working class struggle against the Occupation IS subordinated to the desire not to cause the Occupation to leave i.e. not just a refusal to call for "Troops Out Now" but actual opposition to the demand (e.g. when it was raised in the platform of Hands Off Iran) as being reactionary, but has also stretched to the Shia clerical-fascist allies of the Occupation who we were told were creating a form of bourgeois democracy in Iraq. These Shia-clerical-fascists we were told were not at all like the Sunni clerical-fascists! If you want to see a parallel with the Comintern's gyrations in China as an example of opportunism then the AWL's changes of line in IRaq are a good example as I set out Lessons of the Iranian Revolution comparing the AWL's position in Iraq with the mistakes made by the Left in Iran.

The AWL have often in relation to other orgaqnisations made clear what kind of organisation gyrates from ultra-leftism to opportunism, perhaps they should adopt the same method of analysis to themselves.

Arthur Bough

As in Iraq where when the reality disproves the AWL’s prognosis the line remains, but either the justification for the line changes or the reality is denied, so in Venezuela. Faced with the reality that 5 million workers, all the Trade Unions including the C-CURA which is one of the more militant union organisations signed up to the PSUV – and especially as Clive Bradley had previously said that under such circumstances socialists undertaking activity in the PSUV should be “uncontroversial” - the line remains the same “stay outside the real workers movement”, but is now justified by the ridiculous claim that these 5 million workers are not “real” workers but “careerists”.

But can this ridiculous claim be justified. This article on the Venezuelanalysis site from Green Left Weekly rather dismantles it, and exposes the nakedness of Paul’s call for socialists to join instead the PRS.

“For instance, within the trade union movement, all of the main currents decided months before enrolment began to join the new party. Even the overwhelming majority of the leadership and rank and file of the C-CURA union tendency, which Gonzalez writes of in glowing terms, voted in March to encourage its members to join PSUV — despite one of its key leaders, Orlando Chirinos, arguing against it.”

As for Paul’s alternative “Workers Party” which turns out to be nothing more than a Trotskyist sect,

“An interesting case is that of the Party of Revolution and Socialism, which, due to its Trotskyist leanings, was pointed to by many like-minded socialist groups internationally as the “real” revolutionary force in Venezuela (ironically this meant it was probably better known outside of Venezuela than inside). After a section of the PSR’s leadership, headed by Chirinos, voted to stay outside the PSUV, the overwhelming bulk of its worker membership left to join the PSUV.”

Full article here

Arthur Bough