 |
| |
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:27
|
|
Dear Friends,
For some time, there has been a lot of confusion outside Venezuela about what exactly has been happening there. How could progressives and trade unionists support the Venezuelan government despite its support of the poor through land reform and income redistribution and its attack on neo-liberalism and the FTAA—given the dedicated opposition of the Confederation of Venezuelan Workers (CTV)? How, when there was a general strike, could we side with the government rather than workers? For trade union organisations, the problem has been even more difficult—given the support for the CTV by international labour organisations (including the ILO). Nevertheless, as the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) noted in the statement issued by Ken Georgetti on 18 April last year after the defeated coup, the role of the CTV in that coup against the democratically elected government of Hugo Chavez raised serious questions about the character of the CTV and its place in the crony capitalism and sham democracy that had left 80 % of the population in poverty in an oil-rich nation.
Today, though, there should be no confusion. Because the CTV has been exposed as just an arm of the Fedecamaras, the Employers Association with which it has been allied-- in the coup and in the so-called general strike. A strange general strike, indeed. One in which workers in the oil industry (blue collar), electricity, transport, public sector, basic industries and the subway, among others, kept working. One in which workers were laid off by the conglomerates (the monopolies) and transnationals and told that they would get full pay for the period of the lock-outs—only now to discover that this promissory note was dependent on the companies defeating the Chavez government. (They are being offered half-pay, loss of vacations, etc... and those that protest? They're in the queues at the Ministry of Labour filing complaints over their dismissals.).
Make no mistake about it—this so-called general strike was a capitalist offensive, supported by the US and its clients, against the Chavez government. Its immediate effect has been an enormous blow to the economy because of the loss of oil revenues for several months as the result of the sabotage (economic, technical and physical) of PDVSA, the national oil company, and also because of the tax revenue losses resulting from the lockouts and a tax strike by the companies. The resulting 'Opposition Deficit' will make this year a difficult one under any circumstances but particularly so in the attempt to meet the enormous needs of the Venezuelan people.
Yet, a longer term effect of this offensive by Venezuela's oligarchy has been the increase in the consciousness of the poor (most of them in the informal sector) and organised workers. There is a mood among workers of self-confidence—one which emerged when the workers in PDVSA ran the company by themselves after the management and technicians abandoned it. In workplace after workplace, workers are talking about auto-gestion and co-gestion, about taking over and running their enterprises as cooperatives (as is occurring in the Sheraton Airport Hotel and was the subject of discussion among the workers in the hotel in Caracas where I was staying). PDVSA itself now has two representatives of its workers in its management, and an associated firm in petrochemicals is being run as a cooperative. In particular, the take-over of enterprises by workers is occurring when the owners threaten to shut down—in one case occurring as the workers decided to prevent the removal of machinery. This process is just beginning, but it looks like capital has lost one of its major weapons, its ability to threaten a capital strike—rather than giving in, Venezuelan workers are moving in.
There is another significant aspect of this new consciousness among workers—which is why there should be no longer any confusion about the CTV and its role in the Venezuelan working class. Yesterday (29 March), a new labour federation was formed—the National Union of Workers (UNT), which has been described as a 'classist, national and revolutionary' union. This new federation has emerged as the result of a long process of discussion which began last July among the Bolivarian Workers Force (FBT), the workers movement fully aligned with the Chavez government and with the Bolivarian movement active among the poor in the Bolivarian Circles, and independent unions (both in and outside the CTV) that are not 'Chavist' but which support the general direction of the government. (This latter group includes in particular the steel workers, subway and petroleum workers.) At the core of these discussions was the question of how autonomous the new federation would be in relation to the government; now, after the last capitalist offensive, the matter has been resolved—UNT ('unity') will be independent, class-oriented, democratic and revolutionary.
This new federation begins with more workers than have been nominally represented by the CTV, which will lose any credibility it has had outside Venezuela as its member unions leave. (Indeed, the petroleum workers union from which Carlos Ortega, the current head of CTV, came is itself a key union in the formation of UNT.) Of course, capital does not give up so easily. Through the CIA and its various fronts such as the National Endowment for Democracy (which financed the American Center for International Labor Solidarity in its support for the CTV), the opponents of 'the process' in Venezuela will attempt to maintain their hold over the positions of labour federations such as the AFL-CIO, international labour federations like the ICFTU (International Confederation of Free Trade Unions) and the ILO.
This is why it is especially important now for progressives and trade unionists to inform themselves of what is happening in Venezuela and in the Venezuelan workers movement. [snip]
No one in Venezuela thinks the struggle is over—not when the stakes are so high. Caracas on 10-14 April offers an opportunity to show solidarity with the most significant movement happening right now in the Americas and to inform yourselves so you can battle effectively against the enemies of this process (who are the enemies of anything similar elsewhere).
in solidarity,
mike lebowitz
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
C0ckney
|
|
Big Up The Macedonian Massive
Apr 2000
time: 05:27
|
|
any chance of a summary?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Jarvin
|
 |
America!
Jun 2002
time: 05:27
|
|
quote:
Capitalism has a longer history of failure, yet there are still a lot of people sprouting its supposedly virtues. Same thing. |
What failures are these? If you're talking about the abuse of workers during the industrial revolution, then it had nothing to do with capitalism, that happens in any industrialiazation of a nation. Its what made Stalin's atrocities go from simple brutality to all out genocide. Other than that, capitalism has had no large scale failure, and what small failures there have been have been usually rectified on discovery (individual corruption for example).
Communism on the other hand has not only had a long history of failure, its set up in such a fashion that it CAN'T succeed. If it did there would be no doctors or scientists, or not good ones anyway. Who's going to go to medical school for most of a decade if their career in medicine is going to land them in the same hovel they'd be in if they took jobs as janitors. Why should 2 jobs, one vastly more complicated and valuable than the other, be making the same pay?
People say it looks good on paper, but it doesnt even then. It only looks good when you turn off your brain and succumb to mob mentality. Communism just means everyone is equaly starving.
Socialism is only marginally better. Socialism is like taking the bad parts out of capitalism and making them worse. Monopolies are bad, but socialists somehow think they get better when left to the state. Instead of business men, backed only by money, the monoplies are controlled by politicians backed by police and military.
The gov't isn't the answer to all your problems, it's only function is to defend you from foreign armies and internal criminals, not to give you "free" medical care and electricity, and i used quotations on free because you do have to pay for it in the form of exorbinant socialist taxes (like 70% income tax).
IMO, communists and socialists are people who either want the state to be their mommies, or they really havent looked at the details.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Worthingtons
|
|
Pride Park,Derby
Jan 2002
time: 05:27
|
|
Communism is such a faulted ideal that it's laughable. Why would anyone strive to be financially equal with everybody (with no possibility to change that)?? Surely only the no-hopers who have no ambition and/or very little intelligence (hence cannot compete with most people in the job market) would strive for such a reality?!?!
Where would the motivation be for working? , Would the Job satisfaction come from if there wasnt a point to gaining promotion!?! what about target driven people - if you coudnt string money incentives to thier work woudnt they be less satisfied? also, apart from to culviate the mind out of sheer enjoyment there woudnt be much benefit from Education.
Communism will always fail, socialism will severely stifle all aspects of life for the Majority - both ideals are garbage.
The Modern person often wants to make something of themselves, they want to achieve things and be recognised, people want to be able to differentiate themselves so they keep a unique identity and people want to see rewards for thier efforts. If you let these people do as they please society is better for everyone, and Capitalism is the only ideal which allows this.
Cheers
Matt
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mordoch
|
|
Denver, Colorado
Jan 2002
time: 05:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
The reason they're ****ed now is largely due to the enormous problems created and covered up in the Soviet era. |
In fact the current condition of most of the former USSR states is evidence of the problems of communism. You're talking about an estimated 1 million Kazakhs being killed in a collectivization effort during the late 1920's and 1930's in the USSR, primarily due to starvation. Killing a million people in one province alone due to failure in your economic policies is a level of failure that capitalist economies have enourmous trouble matching. I'm currently studied the history of the Central Asian republics under the Soviet Union, and its one amazing economic screwup after another. For those who want further information, a good place to start for Kazakhstan is The Kazakhs by Martha Brill Olcott.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Felch
|
 |
Germantown, Maryland
Sep 2001
time: 00:27
|
|
When governing structures fail, the impact of their failure is comparable to the influence and reach the government has. Thus, government failures in capitalist countries tend to have a mild impact, when the capitalism goes hand in hand with the free market. When the government allies itself strongly with business as in colonies and coporatist states, its **** ups have a much greater impact.
The real problems with capitalism arise because it often isn't free market capitalism. Under the free market abuses do exist, but the amount of damage any business can do is limited to its own reach, which is almost never greater than the government. There do still exist problems, the free market isn't perfect, but it does tend to limit the extent of damage.
The key solution to this is a government that protects the free market as a system, but is severe and harsh towards corporate abuses. Businesses should be treated with the same hatred and suspicion that blacks and hispanics get from the police every day. A business doing something suspicious should be investigated, and they and their workers should never profit from criminal activity.
In terms of the Soviet Union, communists around the world were generally as mindless in their support of it as right wingers were of Pinochet and other criminals. Just because nobody is willing to admit it now doesn't mean that the USSR, PRC, and other communist states weren't poster boys for virtually every organized communist party. There's nothing wrong with admitting that communists were proud of it. They could point to the Soviet Union and brag about all the wonderful ways it treated its workers and how scientifically advanced it was and a bunch of other things. The USSR made many important contributions to the world, just like capitalist countries. It's important to accept however that those contributions came at a horrific price. That's all anybody is saying.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27.
Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
06-04-2003 04:47
|