Notes on XXIst Century Socialism

[Thus far my favorite critical piece on events in Venezuela. For a surprisingly robust, open and religious(!) exploration of the same theme, check out this speech by the outgoing Defense Minister... a long time friend of Hugo. — JB]

by Bromma
from threewayfight

Hugo Chavez, President of Venezuela, recently announced the arrival of XXIst Century Socialism. This declaration, although greeted with great enthusiasm, left a residue of confusion. Since Chavez didn't discuss XXIst Century Socialism during his recent Presidential campaign, and since there are virtually no public theoretical documents defining this new Socialist era, its precise features are not always clear.

Fortunately, Chavez has appointed a committee, well stocked with international supporters, to come up with appropriate explanatory documents. In the meantime, we can best understand the contours of XXIst Century Socialism by examining it as it actually functions in the real world. Practice is the true test of theory; after several years of Chavez's leadership, we can readily detect the broad outlines of this innovative Socialism.

There appear to be several critical new features of the new XXIst Century Socialist breakthrough. We will review some of the most important:

First of all, XXIst Century Socialism does not require a revolution. This comes as a great relief to Socialists around the world, and will surely encourage many new Socialists to step forward.

Socialism now has a better strategy for establishing its hegemony. This strategy calls for XXIst Century Socialists to promote a powerful populist figure, preferably one who (as in Chavez's case) specifically denies being a leftist. After helping this man to power, the Socialists encourage him to take over as many state and economic institutions as possible, removing bourgeois obstacles that would have taken mass organizations many years to overthrow. In time, the Socialists convince the Leader to declare himself a Socialist.

Not only does this strategic solution avoid much sterile left-wing ideological debate, it also makes worker insurgency, clandestine revolutionary organization, guerrilla warfare, a militant women's movement and many other holdovers from the Old Socialism obsolete.

Second of all, XXIst Century Socialism is initiated and directed from above. The Socialist Leader makes all decisions about the direction of society, an arrangement that provides maximum flexibility and singleness of purpose.

The Socialist Leader is responsible for deciding the details as well as the overall direction of domestic and foreign policy. These decisions are announced to the people when the time is right. The Leader is also positioned to reverse Socialism's course quickly if conditions change.

To implement this advanced policy, the Socialist Leader has personal control of the finances, media, justice system and armed forces of the state, with no sabotaging oversight from bureaucrats, functionaries or potential backsliders.

Similarly, to avoid the carping and splitting that are so common among old-style party-builders, the Leader himself declares and forms the XXIst Century Socialist Party. As a side benefit, anyone who does not join the true Party is starkly exposed as a likely enemy of Socialism.

To prevent this Socialism from above from becoming undemocratic, Socialist society is mobilized to support it in the ideological realm and in the streets. Large posters of the Leader are prominently displayed on public surfaces; busloads of supporters are organized for all his speaking engagements. Roving bands of Socialists maintain discipline and quickly implement the Leader's instructions.

Since a Leader must be able to communicate directly to the masses, XXIst Century Socialism provides for him to take over all broadcast media for unlimited periods so that the people can see and hear the Leader's speeches or informal comments. Opposing media are permitted to operate during other time periods, unless the Leader determines that they are undermining Socialism. Reactionary misuse of the media will be prevented by any means necessary.

Third of all, XXIst Century Socialism is socially conservative. This is one of the most innovative features of the new Socialism--one that is sure to rattle the bourgeoisie. The ruling classes expect Socialists to take knee-jerk positions on women's rights, religion and other social issues.

But Chavez confounds ruling class strategists by opposing abortion (which he "abhors"), by appealing to messianic religious fervor (he calls Jesus his "savior" and "Commander-in-Chief"), and by embracing anti-imperialist partners of the hard Right such as Iran's fundamentalist leader, Amadinejad (whom he considers his "ideological brother"). Chavez and his Bolivarian comrades lead the way with an unapologetically virile style of leadership. They transcend the "political correctness" and petty concerns of bourgeois feminism that have enervated Socialism for decades.

Fourth of all, XXIst Century Socialism defeats capitalism using the weapon of natural resources. Trying to create a sustainable, broad-based economy in an under-developed country is an exercise in frustration. The new Socialist model, by contrast, is fueled by massive sales of oil and other super-valuable commodities. The bourgeoisie is infuriated by having to finance Socialism every time they purchase a barrel of crude on the world market. The Leader generously shares tens of billions of dollars of windfall profits from natural resources with allies and friends of Socialism worldwide.

Fifth of all, XXIst Century Socialism builds a rich web of rewards and financial networks. The Old Socialist bromide called for giving "To each, according to their labor." This is now replaced with, "To each, according to their XXIst Century Socialism."

Socialists are compensated in myriad ways, as in Venezuela. Those who prove their loyalty enjoy automatic preference on the job and in every other aspect of social life. Pro-Socialist businesses also are richly rewarded. At the same time, careful monitoring, including computerized recording of citizen voting choices, allows XXIst Century Socialists to detect disloyal individuals and counteract their treachery through a wide array of proactive measures.

Under the new Socialism, reactionary corruption inherited from the bourgeoisie is dialectically transformed into a progressive system of Socialist Rewards. Superficial observers are confused that in Venezuela, judges and law enforcement officials from the old regime are allowed to continue their previous practices with impunity, and that no-bid contracts, private jets, Hummers, and other luxuries proliferate among Socialists. It is plain to see, however, that today such benefits are only permitted to those who are loyal to XXIst Century Socialism. Any official who strays off the path of Socialism can be quickly arrested for Bourgeois Corruption, which gives critical leverage to the Socialist leadership.

Overall, XXIst Century Socialism dramatically streamlines the political process. Divisive special interest groups such as independent unions, women's organizations and opposition parties are no longer necessary, since Socialism itself looks after all the Socialist people. The bond between the Socialist Leader and the masses is direct and visceral, unmediated by bureaucratic, legislative, political or judicial institutions. For instance, armed Socialist militias swear loyalty not to a paper constitution, but personally, to the Leader himself. The same efficient dynamic applies in practice to judges, Socialist legislators and politicians, the military, and those who direct Socialist industries.

Surely many more features of XXIst Century Socialism will emerge as time goes on. One thing is certain, though: if current trends continue to advance, Socialism will never be the same.

Comments

[JB]

By favorite, of course, I don't mean that I agree with it all.

[zerohour]

For a great article on Chavez's oil strategy, read this:

Hugo Chavez Has an Oil Strategy...But Can This Lead to Liberation? by Raymond Lotta.

This article stands out because it deals concretely with the one topic many of Chavez's supporters try to gloss over. I'm shocked at how many "Marxists" have just skipped over, or sugar-coated, the crucial question of Venezuela's economic base. They are just so thrilled at the way he uses oil profits to fund the grand "socialist" experiment, that they are not looking at how his oil-based economic strategy reflects about his pragmatic political outlook.

More than just being about Venezuela, the article gives a good concrete description of just how it works when a country is caught up in the circuits of imperialism. Sorry for that rather imprecise formulation - hopefully someone else can put it better.

Granted the article is not comprehensive, and does not claim to be, but it is a great piece for discussion.

[JB]

I read Lotta's piece. One thought: what should Venezuela do with all that oil, if not sell it and push for economic integration within Latin America for the first time ever?

How better, considering where they are, to combat the simple expropriation of Latin America's riches by imperialism than to develop that kind of infrastructure?

If they have the oil, use it.

A program based around ignoring oil is ridiculous. Every socialist country, every single one, has pushed for the ability to deal economically with the rest of the world, to the extent it was possible. The question was, and continues to be on what terms?

Lotta seems to be arguing for autarchies where each country or zone becomes self-sufficient, even to the point of ignoring what they really do have.

Cuba has nickel, sunshine and an educated workforce that speaks a world language. Should they forbid tourism? Could that be seriously argued? You could try... but I promise you a difficult hearing, which would be easy compared to the laughter from any Venezuelan if you said they shouldn't sell oil.

Reliable rumor has it that when Chavez came to New York, someone from the Venezuelan entourage came by Revolution Books looking for Noam Chomsky's Hegemony or Survival. Unfortunately, they were sold out.

He went before the United Nations and pointed out that it was a rubber stamp for imperialism, that many of the national governments therein did not represent their peoples, and that people should ignore this sacred cow of imperial control and manipulation.

Thank you, Hugo.

Does that mean the people rule? Or that the political and social changes are battering at the class structure? Or that Venezuela is a base are for regional revolution?

Is it enough that they are the best, most beloved government in the entire hemisphere? That they are beloved by the most oppressed people exactly because of the real changes in their lives?

Much of this oil money is fueling a consumer binge, particularly among the moaning and crying upper classes who seem to have it quite fine. They can't trust their servants... but they certainly still have them.

One thing's for sure... Chavez's brand of petro-populism won't play in countries like Mexico where there ain't enough oil to go around. And it remains to be seen when, if and how Chavez's socialism will become more than a promise.

The direction is good, but the change has hardly been decisive or as radical as his rhetoric. I really don't care if he professes faith in Jesus. Read this speech by the former Defense Minister Gen. Raúl Isaias Baduel,
Our Model of Socialism Must Be Profoundly Democratic.

I mean, it's hardly materialist, but it ain't Uribe... and that's this real world.

I guess Lotta's analysis is wrong in its emphasis on oil. Oil is a fact, it is a source of riches – and of geopolitical power. To ignore it, or act as if it is simply radioactive is mistaken. Economies will use what they have.

The question must be the agency of the people, if we are seeking a qualitative understanding of "is it or ain't it". If the people rule, it's socialism.

The devil is in that detail.

[Spammer]

The Lotta piece is all general, no particulars. In many ways a typical, dogmatic RCP/Lotta production.

That said, some of Lotta's dogmas have a point to them, and Lotta is basically correct in that relying on the oil strategy Chávez has articulated will not get you on the road to socialism (which is not the same thing as denying the importance of oil).

[Red Heretic]

Jed, what's fundamental? What are we aiming for?

"Is it enough that they are the best, most beloved government in the entire hemisphere? That they are beloved by the most oppressed people exactly because of the real changes in their lives?"

Under slavery, it would have brought about the kind of "real changes" you're talking about if there were some nice slave masters who gave their slaves big meals. However, Lotta is calling for genuine liberation, not a "change" in the way the oppression and exploitation of people is carried out.

If you're entire economy is transformed to pivot around a single resource, it actually DEEPENS the hold of imperialism on your country, because it takes your country further away from self-reliance.

The kind of pragmatism you're talking about is a road to oppression under imperialism.

"Every socialist country, every single one, has pushed for the ability to deal economically with the rest of the world, to the extent it was possible."

Yes, but what is fundamental? Compare the Shanghai Textbook and the model of revolutionary China, which sought to build a liberated self-reliant socialist country, to the model of Cuba, which sought to transform it's entire economy around the particular needs of Soviet social-imperialism (tourism and sugar).

These revisionist roads don't lead to liberation at all!

[repeater]

Red heretic writes: "If you're entire economy is transformed to pivot around a single resource, it actually DEEPENS the hold of imperialism on your country, because it takes your country further away from self-reliance."

This is just one problem with Lotta's article: It gives the impression that the Venezuelan economy is in the process of transforming to inordinant dependance on petroleum, as opposed to transforming away from such dependence. And it does this without ever, not once, dealing with exactly those programs which are intended to make this transformation. There are something like eighteen "Misions" in Venezuela, Lotta discusses one, Mision Mercal. What he doesn't discuss are the programs of industrial and agricultural development which are meant to broaden the base of the economy and make Venezuela less dependant on world capital, such as Mision Zamora, and the endogenous nucleus production sites.

And Lotta never, absolutely never, discusses the actual situation in Venezuela with regards to ideology and consciousness. It's simply, and only, oil. That's all we need to know, and on the basis of the fact of Venezuela's distorted petro-economy, a situation which long preceded Chavez, Lotta arrives at a series of conclusion which simply do not follow from his earlier argument. If it is the case that many Chavez supporters gloss over the oil issue, and it is, I think we can also say that Lotta glosses over everything else.

Another problem is that Lotta offers no possible solution that connects with Venezuela's actual conditions, some of the very conditions which he enumerates in his article, such as the fact that over 70% of the food consumed in Venezuela is imported, that the country is overwhelmingly urbanized, etc. In such a situation, along with the current low level of consciousness, and the great risk of more coups and intervention from the U.S., what is going to be your first step in ending the dependant oil economy, or building socialism?

It seems that Lotta, by setting the bar at one level, that is, by suggesting that oil production is itself somehow more capitalistic than any other commodity production and must be ended as a prerequisite to a socialist economy and society, that Lotta would simply end the oil trade in one fell swoop, and "mobilize" the masses out into the empty fields of Venezuela's hinterland to begin a crash program of agricultural development. How he's going to pay for food and other needed imports in the meantime is of no importance, we can assume that the people will just go without. And maybe their tractors can run on biodiesal... nevermind, to hell with combustion engines anyway, they cause global warming. I do not see what other program can be offered when the situation is posed as starkly as Lotta poses it. Either you have oil production, or you don't.

Everything Lotta writes points to this idiotic and adventurous program. If he has some secret plan that would allow Venezuela to simultaneously stop oil production and continue to import food and other commodities, and at the same time remain stable enough to forestall, or at least be able to defend against foreign invasion, or internal defeat, all as he tries to reverse engineer the society from the cities out to the countryside, he should lay it on us.

I think the reality is that any and all revolutionary forces are going to have to continue producing oil and gaining capital from it in order to finance development in other sectors until that time when they can at the very least feed themselves. The question with regards to Chavez's programs is not oil, but whether they are being succesfull at diversifying the economy, and to what extent is the process being driven by conscious participation. To put it another way, trajectory and ideology. The only way you can answer either of these questions is by investigating the actual point at which the oil is being "sowed", and the larger political/ideological debate swirling around in the society. In other words the main things missing from Lotta's article are the most important things for evaluating what is going on in Venezuela.

Ironically, if you do this you come to a similar verdict, similar in the sense that both Lotta, myself, and Bromma agree that there is no socialism in Venezuela, and that there is no revolution, and that it is highly unlikely that there is going to be one under Chavez. It should be obvious however that while we share a vaguely similar verdict the differences in method betray significant differences over what socialism and revolution are, and how they're prosecuted.

All this said the article posted above is complete garbage (at least Lotta's article had actual facts and references). While some of its points are fairly close to what seems to be going on, most of them are so distorted, leave so much opposing information out, that you are left with nothing but an immature and irresponsible characterization of a real situation. It would be better if his assertions were followed by some references. Some of the assertions more or less directly echoe the most absurd slanders of the opposition in Venezuela, and their allies in the U.S. and Europe.

As for the particular assertion that "there are virtually no public theoretical documents defining this new Socialist era", the author is simply wrong. I have a stack of periodicals and books claiming to define "this new Socialist era". The fact that there is not a singular official document, or theory, ironically proves the idiocy of all the claims of overwhelming unitary or totalitarian ideology being at the leading edge of what's going on in Venezuela.

Furthermore, there are state owned bookstores all over Venezuela, including in the metro stations of Caracas, selling these books and periodicals. There is even a category of free literature called Ediciones "Socialismo del Siglo XXI", which have the following statement written on the back, "La venta de este libro es un acto contrarevolucionario". Given the nature of the informal market in Venezuela this is not a superfluous statement.

Between this article and Lotta's all we have are dueling ultra-leftisms.

[Christopher Day]

Thank you Repeater. You said much that I was thinking. I'd like to see a little more discussion however of the question of whether or not there is revolution or socialism in Venezuela. That the processes taking place don't neatly correspond with most of our ideas about revolution is clear. But, based on discussions with people who have visited Venezuela, I think we tend to underestimate the extent and content of participation of the masses in the transformations taking place. Also there is a cautiousness about expropriations that causes many of us to wonder if this really is an anti-capitalist project at all. I submit that given Venezuela's high integration into the world market (particularly its dependence on it for food) that this cautiousness is warranted and that the overall tendency, however slow, is a dismantling of bourgeois property relations.

I say all of this while maintaining my own doubts. At the end of the day what most inclines me to defend the Bolivarian Revolution is that it has put revolution and socialism back on the lips of the left and opened up discussions like the one we are having here. Maybe Chavez will crash and burn or turn into just another populist caudillo. But in the present moment he is revitalizing the revolutionary left in Latin America in ways that can not help but escape his control. The Cuban Revolution was and is profoundly flawed in many ways, but as an example it fueled several generations of revolutionaries in Latin America and elsewhere, only some of whom took up the folly of Guevara's focoism. These things are messy and contradictory. Autarchy is one thing in a country, like 1940s China, where the vast majority of people are already self-sufficient food producers and quite another in places like Cuba or Venezuela and those who prescribe it should answer to those differences first.

[JB]

Red Heretic writes: Under slavery, it would have brought about the kind of "real changes" you're talking about if there were some nice slave masters who gave their slaves big meals. However, Lotta is calling for genuine liberation, not a "change" in the way the oppression and exploitation of people is carried out.

If you're entire economy is transformed to pivot around a single resource, it actually DEEPENS the hold of imperialism on your country, because it takes your country further away from self-reliance.

Except, as our intrepid reporter Repeater pointed out, Chavez isn't moving towards a mono-economy based on oil... they are actually investing away from that without pretending that they aren't sitting on a literal ocean of oil and natural gas. The massive land reform, that is real, and the development of popular militias and political education circles aren't some aberation – they appear to be integral to the larger social-democratic, anti-imperialist program in place.

While our author from the ThreeWayFight mocks the authority of "the Leader", s/he apparently knows little about what leadership actually is.

Without the uprising of people around Caracas during the fascist coup, Chavez would be dead and the country would be in shambles. The people rose up, from the slums to large sections of the military who now respect democracy more than the payoffs of the (very real and on the way out) oligarchs.

Second, I'm sorry but Chavez is no slave master and your analogy just doesn't hold. He is not getting rich off the labor of the people, he is helping to redistribute wealth. That "wealth" includes social access to new universities, founded on a sort of serve-the-people model that emulates nothing so much as the socialist need to create people who are "red and expert"... not "to get rich is glorious".

I agree that Lotta and the ThreeWayFight are both making "ultraleft" arguments, except that Lotta's just makes no sense to me. He seems to literally be arguing to ignore the resources the country actually has. YOU CAN'T DO THAT. It's not reality-based.

The question becomes how you deal with it and to what end. This is why the political orientation of Chavez and the country's political leadership is so crucial, and that we need to continue investigating and challenging the forms of popular participation and power.

Chavez could well be assassinated at any time.

Would the "socialist" direction of Venezuela hold up to that? I wonder. That's not to simply disparage Chavez, or his intentions... it's to note that social and political power must be diffused in ways that aren't subject to a simple lever at the top.

I also take exception to the repetition of (frankly) bourgeois claims about media in Venezuela. There is less censorship there than in any country in the hemisphere, and considerably more liberty in these matters than ever in the history of Venezuela. There was active government censorship until Chavez was elected (6 times, in short succession just so we're clear on this). He abolished government censorship. No such office exists.

Bromma also mocks the very existence of popular mobilization. Sorry, but there ain't nothing wrong with challenging reactionaries and it tickles me to no end when the defenders of privilege are shown up in the street everywhere they go.

Venezuela is polarized, and the socialist left will not be creating a revolutionary alternative in opposition to Chavez. I can't see this, and from reports I've heard from visitors and others – why should they?

Why shouldn't socialists and communists in Venezuela join and participate in the new Socialist Party and fight for a revolutionary and openly communist direction?

That fight's going to happen, and you have to be in it to win it.

In other words, he ain't jus some Democrat. If he wants to pander to religious sentiment, perhaps that's better than burning their churches. Perhaps that's not the right cut for a head of state to take, mandatory atheism, etc. Secularism, sure... they've got that. But mandatory professions of faith, or lack thereof, from a government party are problematic because people must have basic freedom of conscience.... which is something the Bolivarian/Socialist transformation has allowed for the first time in Venezuelan history for the broad masses of people outside the urban bourgeoisie.

Also, comrade Red Heretic: comparing the freedom and necessity of Cuba to China is just silly. Cuba has a population about the size of New York City and is an island 90 miles from the coast of the most powerful military machine in the history of the world. China could feed itself, had a population of hundreds of millions and fought the US to a stalemate in Korea.

Cuba could not do that. They must interact economically with other countries – including for basic foodstuff, electrical power... even copper wires and water purification equipment. And so on. They don't have iron. Or wood reserves.

The argument that countries should simply detach from economic relations with others is stupid. Sorry, but it's not going to happen ANYWHERE on earth, and if it was attempted the resulting starvation and deprivation would lead even the staunchest supporters to abandon ship faster than you could judge them for it.

[Gen. Raúl Isaías Baduel (repost)]

"When I say that we find ourselves in an unprecedented transition, the political and social order that our nation is experiencing, among other things, I am referring to the process of construction of a new political, economic, and social order that we have denominated 21st Century Socialism. The term socialism, unfortunately, does not have a homogenous and fixed meaning for everyone who uses the term and from there comes, perhaps, the uncertainty and uneasiness that is created in some sectors of the country when it is only mentioned. The call from President Hugo Chavez to construct 21st Century Socialism implies the urgent necessity to formalize our own theoretical model of socialism that is adapted to our historical, social, cultural, and political context.

"We have to admit that this theoretical model, for the time being, does not exist, nor has it been formulated and I am guessing that as long as it remains so, there will remain uncertainties in some social groups. As I have said, on the other hand, we must invent 21st Century Socialism, yes, but not in an unorganized and chaotic way, but rather taking advantage of the tools and the framework of references that science gives us.

"We must invent our own model, with logic, with methodology, with order, and consciousness. On the Aló Presidente TV show on March 27th, 2005, Mr. President indicated, and I quote, “The socialism of Venezuela will be built according to the original ideas of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.”

[Gleb]

Some thoughts on this.

Chris says something interesting to consider: "in the present moment he is revitalizing the revolutionary left in Latin America in ways that can not help but escape his control."

The Left in Latin America has been badly defeated and suffered from lowered sights. So, on the one hand, it would seem good that there is some sort of major figure calling for more radical transformations than Lula, Kirchner and the neoliberal former guerrilla running Uruguay.

On a certain level, it is kind of hard to argue with that. But let's step back and try to envision what the masses of people in Latin America and the world actually need, which is communism. If we don't see the Venezuelan process leading down that road, then, viewed from this loftier standpoint, don't we need to point out and raise the need for someone to divert this process into that road, if at all possible? Perhaps the fact that Chavez does at least challenge the TINA assumptions of the Lulaites is a contribution in moving things in that direction. I guess we'll see.

But let's also keep in mind that Chavez is not only inspiring the revolutionary left. The main forces allied with Chavez in Peru, for example, are Ollanta Humala's party. This is a right-wing, super 'Indian' nationalist party that is run by someone guilty of war crimes in the war against Sendero and which has absorbed (and mimics the political style of) a good section of Fujimori's supporters.

And, speaking of Peru, a former NY Times reporter told me this past weekend that a good section of Chavez's core supporters (and Chavez himself) come out of a section of the Venezuelan military deeply influenced by the Peruvian armed forces and which trained at the Peruvian military's highly ideological college during the 1960s (presumably we're talking about Chavez, et. al.'s mentors here). I haven't had time to check this out, but my source is pretty good.

Anyways, the 1968-1980 'leftist' Peruvian military regime is a useful phenomenon to think about, I think, I thinking about the Chavez regime, whether or not it in fact forms part of Chavez's ideological pedigree.

[zerohour]

I'm really disappointed that many people here have let their criticism of RCP degrade their reading skill.

Lotta,and RCP do not argue that Venezuela should ignore oil or de-link. Here's what it says near the end of the article: "What would be the role of oil in a country like Venezuela, with extensive petroleum reserves, if a genuine socialist revolution took place? There would need to be a radical reorientation away from oil’s historically dominant position in the structure and functioning of the economy. This calls for a decisive break with export-oriented, oil-based development. Oil would still play some role in the economy, but this would be quantitatively and qualitatively different. [emphasis mine - zh] Concerted and coordinated society-wide efforts would be made to greatly reduce dependency on oil as an energy source. Society would move towards more ecologically sound alternatives, especially as oil is currently extracted, refined, transported, etc., but fundamentally in developing a renewable energy foundation of growth. The social-economic calculus would no longer be one of maximizing production or maximizing returns but rather developing a just, rational, and ecologically sustainable economy based on the conscious activism of the masses and serving the liberation of society and humanity as a whole."

He traces the historical role that oil has played in Venezuelas' economic development, the role it continues to play, and the likely trajectory it will follow. Despite what scammer says, there is quite a bit of detail and citations. If there is something not addressed

At the beginning of the article, he clearly states that this is not a comprehensive analysis and that it's scope is limited to the oil-dominated economy. Yet people are treating it like a full-blown analysis. The is partially Lotta's fault. It is bad form to draw overall conclusions like he did before the whole argument is laid out. But that doesn't eliminate our responsibility to understand his argument before we trash it.

Admittedly, he suggests a schematic alternative with no specificity, but the questions is still there: is it possible, or even desirable, to diversify away from an oil-dominant economy? Why do people think that even asking this question is heresy?

Christopher Day says: "At the end of the day what most inclines me to defend the Bolivarian Revolution is that it has put revolution and socialism back on the lips of the left and opened up discussions like the one we are having here." I can't defend a political movement on the basis of their inspirational effect. Although it is a good thing, there are a lot of concrete mitigating factors to consider. I'm still learning myself, but I'm put off by the almost religious-like zeal with which Chavez supporters avoid asking hard questions. It smells of lefty desperation for inspiration to come from anywhere.

repeater says: "I think the reality is that any and all revolutionary forces are going to have to continue producing oil and gaining capital from it in order to finance development in other sectors until that time when they can at the very least feed themselves. The question with regards to Chavez's programs is not oil, but whether they are being succesfull at diversifying the economy, and to what extent is the process being driven by conscious participation." I agree, but Lotta gives argument, and citations, as to why these things not on the agenda. Did you even read the article?

JB disagreed that oil would be a place to start an analysis. Maybe he should be asking why there has been no sustained critical analysis of such a crucial feature of Venzuelan society from so-called "Marxists" to begin with. Note to Marxists: avoiding economic reductionism does not mean avoiding economics.

[zerohour]

Sorry I didn't finish my sentence at the end of the third paragraph. It should read "If there is something not addressed, then state it, but don't make false accusations."

[JB]

Oh... it would be "different".

Uh, it is different. The problem isn't our reading skills, it's in Lotta's argument or he has no argument at all.

The question of autarchy is real... in the heads of political leaders at a loss for a real-world program, and of course the DPRK.

Venezuela is using oil wealth to push for ALBA and anti-imperialist regional integration for the first time ever. After 500 years, maybe its time to have Peru be more connected with Venezuela and Argentina that it is with the USA and Japan.

That is real. It is not rhetorical.

The vast reduction in poverty is real. Land reform is real. Development of cooperative industries, including handicrafts and heavy industry is real.

That Lotta doesn't even investigate all this, while focusing on the oil industry is a mistake in method. I believe. Recognizing that the RCP's analysis is a work in progress, we can be fair.

We can also notice that the real bottom line for the RCP as an organization is whether everyone in the world understands that Bob Avakian as an individual man is the single thread by which the whole world hangs.

Since the Venezuelans could give a flying fuck about Bob Avakian's adoration society, they will inevitably let us down. Sorry to say, that is no cariacture as we can see by their refusal to report on the revolution in Nepal, developments in the international communist movement or... up until this piece by Lotta, the challenging events in Venezuela.

Rather stunning. But this isn't about the RCP, or any organization with nothing to show for itself but an exagerated sense of self. It's about the choices a real political movement is making, in state power, that has avowedly moved towards socialism after that was supposedly dead.

My general attitude about good words is always "well, well see..."

And what we've seen so far may not fit the Bolshevik template... but is that really the issue? All the more so when the "template" is frankly incoherent.

[JB]

Which is to say that Bolshevism is a method in today's world, not a program.

[zerohour]

JB says: "Venezuela is using oil wealth to push for ALBA and anti-imperialist regional integration for the first time ever. After 500 years, maybe its time to have Peru be more connected with Venezuela and Argentina that it is with the USA and Japan." This is a voluntarist argument if I ever saw one. Why not show us how this can be achieved besides grand statements of intent? Lotta showed how Venezuela's oil-heavy economy ties it to the US through both technological infrastructure and the competitive demands of the market. Why don't you show how an oil-dominant economy in such close proximity with the US, which depends on the world market could do otherwise?

"Since the Venezuelans could give a flying fuck about Bob Avakian's adoration society, they will inevitably let us down." Knock it off with the ad hominem arguments already.

Problems with method? How about this: "The vast reduction in poverty is real. Land reform is real. Development of cooperative industries, including handicrafts and heavy industry is real.

That Lotta doesn't even investigate all this, while focusing on the oil industry is a mistake in method. I believe. Recognizing that the RCP's analysis is a work in progress, we can be fair." First, you chastise him for not addressing the important issues above, and then you try to soften it up by allowing that he will probably address them in the future. Take your own advice. Be fair, deal with his arguments - and yes he has them, and he even has sources *gasp* - not his affiliation.

JB, I disagree with you on this: Lotta's focus on oil is right on time. You refuse to see that it's only part of a larger analysis, as the article clearly states, and should not be mistaken for the whole. So why be dismissive of it? Oil is crucial for Venezuelan politics. Chavez states it often enough. We should diminish its importance because it would divert us from our love affair with the apparent novelty of Chavez's project?

Perhaps it's the Foucauldian side of me that comes up in discussions like this,but it's really remarkable to see the range of statements that can and can't be made when it comes to Chavez. Trashing RCP? Check. Empirically looking at immediate gains in Venezuela. Check. Analyzing the material basis for Bolivarian Revolution? Off limits.

Why is everyone hating on Chavez?

It seems like a lot of American Maoists have this funny idea that the clock struck 1950 and suddenly capitalism was shutdown in China. The land reform took time. Taking over industry took even longer. The old bourgeoisie in Shanghai were still driving around in Mercedes years after the revolution. Just because Chavez hasn't passed a decree abolishing capitalism doesn't mean he's not socialist enough. If you suddenly just try to abolition all market forces it won't work and you'll destroy the economy and people will say they had a better living standard before socialism as a result.

Sometimes people say if Jesus came back today all the Christians would call him a dirty liberal hippy...

Well I think if Marx or Lenin came back today all the "Marxists" would call them revisionists.

Just because you can't get an even remotely leftist candidate elected in the United States doesn't mean Chavez isn't for real. Stop hating!

[zerohour]

Why is Chavez "for real"? Provide concrete arguments.

We're not hating, but you should stop worshipping! Commies don;t belong in church, especially not secular ones.

[Freeway Rick]

Repeater, I kind of like that this isn't an empirical breakdown of Venezuela. It's about adoration and how people are wish-fulfilling VZ, more than a point by point.

If there are some economic breakdowns you think are important, please link them.

Who's hating?

[zerohour]

Earlier JB said : "The question must be the agency of the people, if we are seeking a qualitative understanding of "is it or ain't it". If the people rule, it's socialism."

Lotta says: "and the oil industry is one where worker co-participation, the limits and real nature of which will be discussed in a subsequent installment of this series, is forbidden" He provides no citation here. Is this true? If so, what does it mean that the people are locked out of this crucial economic sector?

What are the indicators that the Venezuelan people rule or are being prepared to do so?

[repeater]

"This calls for a decisive break with export-oriented, oil-based development. Oil would still play some role in the economy, but this would be quantitatively and qualitatively different."

What can this statement possibly mean? How is this "decisive break" going to happen? How would it be "quanititatively and qualitatively different"? Try answering these questions using the benchmarks that Lotta has argued for, and then you or Lotta can tell us all how you would answer this question on the basis of the actual situation in Venezuela.

When I try to answer these questions, that is, when I try to extrapolate the theory into its most likely practice I find that Lotta can only be talking about literally turning off the export of oil and the drawing in of capital more or less immediately. In other words, simply because Lotta doesn't clearly and concisely draw the connections between his analysis and a likely plan of action doesn't mean that we can't, or that he's off the hook for where his analysis would lead.

zerohour writes: "I agree, but Lotta gives argument, and citations, as to why these things not on the agenda. Did you even read the article?"

Yes, I've read the article several times, will read it again, but my whole point is that these things are on the agenda. Lotta either doesn't know it, or refuses to engage it. There is a program to develop an agricultural base, there is a program to build endogenous industrial development. I've been to the farms and the factories. My point is that without engaging those programs and analyzing how they're working and the role of ideology in them, you cannot make a judgement as to whether they will be successful or not, or as to whether they're revolutionary socialism.

Lotta's article seems, more than anything, to make the argument that because of the oil economy everything else is irrelevant. And of course there is a point to some of that, if all the agriculture and industry are dependant on financing from the oil company, they will never really be independent from international capital. But it is still the case that the cutting away in a qualitative sense from the oil dependance economy is better accomplished when you at least have productive industry and agriculture which is mutually reinforcing, and which, after a period of adjustment, can keep the society from collapsing into starvation, unemployment, and chaos. You have to parlay what you have into what you want, while at the same time preparing people for that critical moment of rupture, which will be the revolution. Is this Chavez' agenda? Sometimes.

But another weakness of Lotta's analysis is that it only looks at things from the top, that is what Chavez is doing and saying. While the Left in Venezuela is almost unanymous in putting itself under the umbrella of "Chavez", there are many differences, and there are many other struggles going on which are completely outside of the State's agenda and control. From Douglas Bravo's Third Way Movement, to the unofficial militias in Caracas, to the peasant struggle lead by the Ezequiel Zamora Front. These just as much as anything else should and can give you a sense of what is going on in Venezuela. And they also point to spaces and leaderships which can go much further than Chavez is going. What do they have to say?

And in general, where are the masses in Lotta's analysis? Have we forgotten what Mao said about the relationship between consciousness and economic development? So much so that the only thing of importance is what percentage of capital production is accounted for by the petroleum industry?

"Lotta's focus on oil is right on time."

Lotta's focus on oil was something that was missing from the debate, but the uneven manner in which he puts it forward, and the absurd program which it suggests, ensure that the point will be missed by just about everyone interested in the subject. When someone is screaming in your ear, you're not really paying attention to what they're saying, but to what they're doing.

As for the person who argues that some people here would call Marx and Engels revisionists if they arrived tomorrow... If they had the same program and thinking from the 19th century, if they did not recognize the ruptures from Lenin to Mao, and the necessity for another one today, then you could count me among those who would consider them revisionists. As for Jesus... he was a dirty liberal hippy.

Freeway Rick,

Unfortunately, much of what exists is not on the internet. And then much of what exists is not in English. It takes slightly more initiative on all parts to do an investigation, despite the wonders of wikipedia and google. But seriously, sometimes I wonder if people even bother to use the Venezuelan Google, or to look at the government websites.

As to the adoration and wish fulfilling, this is a real and predominate aspect of the debate, but recognizing that doesn't go much further in creating a correct understanding.

[tee hee]

zerohour said "foucauldian"

[repeater]

Zerohour:

Look at the new Constitution being put into place, and pay attention to the Communal Councils.

The people are not locked out of the petroleum industry because of some political/economic commitment to making them slaves, but because the oil industry simply does not employ many people in production. On the other hand, Chavez is bypassing the usual state apparatus of distributing the oil profits by flooding the above mentioned communal councils with money.

Oddly enough, that people are not being brought into the petroleum sector, but are being given the reins of political power on several levels, while also being given the resources with which to rapidly change things, suggests that Chavez is moving away from the old way of doing things. It is the concrete of how these councils work which will define whether we have simply caudillo bureaucratism, or real power to the people. At any rate the chance exists.

[ShineThePath]

But I think precisely the problem is that Chavez is Castro with Petroleum, that is the very fact that Chavez can enact "XXIst" Century Socialism is because he doesn't have to pay the high cost for actual social revolution. He has the rhetoric of Castro, but has left the whole capitalist infrastructure in tact, social relations have not developed much, and the Bourgeoisie are still holding sway. Why? Because Petroleum money has allowed him to stay away from the (inevitable) Leninist nastiness that is needed to have revolution.

"XXIst" century Socialism, if anything should take something from the XX Century, and thats you need revolutionary movement and events to radically change society, you need to rely on the people to gut out the old earth and reveal the new world, and above all a discplined revolutionary party that can lead such a struggle and be committed to its vocation for militant and revolutionary change.

I think this article is much better than Lotta's (though even Ray has some merits to his), but is it a question of Ultraleftism? I can surely see the Ultraleftism here, but in its most important points that both Lotta and Bromma hit...where is the Revolution? Lets not get it confused...it hasn't happened.

[ShineThePath]

Also let me point out...the talk about Oil and Chavez has never been "missing in the debate" as Zerohour suggests, it has long been talked about.

What strikes me fundamentally wrong with Lotta's article is essentially he is using the question of Petroleum as the rightists and liberals in this country have had, attacking Chavez as a "populist demagogue" who is using oil as a weaopon. Chavez is surely using Oil as a weapon, but as JB has pointed out...what is he suppose to do, ignore it? The quesiton of Oil is like a double edge sword in my opinion, you must utilize it and use it to the ends of making revolutionary change. Which from all accounts is a sloth in Venezuela.

The problem is frankly that it is the very Oil that makes it a sloth. It allows for Chavez not to pay the price of Revolution itself.

[Friday Night Live]

the underlying issue about oil is that you can't buy power to the people. I mean, look at the USA – all this "money" for so many, yet what is it we live in? Medical care and school for most aren't socialism, or even freedom. Fascists can deliver that, and have.

It seems like what people like about Chavez and other recent non-revolutionary developments is that at least something is happening. I don't mean to be cynical, really I don't. I'm happy Chavez is there, I loved his speech at the United Nations where somebody finally said the truth about all of them.