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

[zerohour]

r. john said: "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." Absolutely right but let's backtrack for a sec.

Those "benchmarks" are RCP's benchmarks for a socialism brought about by proletarian revolution. Chavez will not reach them because his line will prevent him from doing so. This is why your next paragraph is off the mark.

Lotta is not suggesting courses of action for Chavez, that's a non-starter. After all, within the limitations of his pragmatic line, he is doing as much as he can, but to meet RCP standards, he'd have to have a different politics. It's badly organized, but Lotta's consistent.

"here 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 judgment as to whether they will be successful or not, or as to whether they're revolutionary socialism." Lotta only briefly touched on it but did, in the quote I used to respond to JB, say he would deal more with the issues you raised in future articles. You're right about the role of ideology, but I don't want to repeat myself here. Rather than criticize Lotta for not doing what he said he was not going to do, can you give a run down of the different lines in play and how much traction they have among different sections of the population, as well as how much influence they have on larger state policy?

"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. " This is untrue. He is critiquing the documented effects of concrete policies.

Let's not limit ourselves to critiquing Lotta's article when you've already indicated some suggestive points. You say: "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?" Well, what do they have to say and how are they implementing local practice and affecting national politics?

"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." But now aren't you the one divorcing line from practice? Are they being trained to administer institutions or is there an ideological component too? Doesn't that line reveal the character of these reins of power? And what is the line?

shinethepath, you are mistaken. I never said Venezuela's oil wasn't "talked about". Actually people talk about it a lot but only in terms of how its profits are used. I said its structural role wasn't being seriously analyzed, and it's so pervasive it almost seems deliberate. For Marxists especially that's pathetic.

"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." Lotta's critique has nothing to do with right wing and liberal critique. They are outraged that he uses oil profits to subsidize "socialism." Lotta is saying that Chavez is not funding socialism. The argument Lotta raises is that Chavez is maintaining the dominant role of oil in Venezuela which will aggravate the lopsidedness in the economy as well as perpetuate the global oil economy. As r. john pointed out, Lotta has suggested no solutions based on concrete conditions in Venezuela. Instead he answers the broader question: "what is to be done?" Who is to do it? That's a different question. For RCP, a [non-existent?] Maoist party that has no large-scale presence at the moment. Otherwise, Chavez? Bravo? Some other force?

"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 agree but I think too many revolutionaries are willing to give up this hard-won insight in the name of "openness" and opposing dogmatism.

Does Chavez represent another way to socialism? I think most people here already agree that he has not. What we can't agree on is what he is doing, and how to assess the social forces he has unleashed.

[r. john]

zerohour attributed this remark to me: "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."

In fact it was said by repeater.

I have not commented in this thread.

[zerohour]

apologies to both parties

[red flags fan]

Hey--long time lurker and fan of this blog here...I found this article that I thought readers would find interesting about "Stalin Gonzalez", a leader of the anti-Chavez student movement. Yes, he's named after THAT Stalin, and it sounds like some of his criticism is coming from the left...but that he's situated within what looks like an essentially rightist movement...not knowing more about Venezuela, it's hard for me to tell...

Anyway, I thought people here would be interested in the article. You gotta wade through a lot of Miami Herald bourgeois bullshit, but there's some interesting stuff there.

Here's the article:
Student critic of Chávez comes from Marxist ranks

[ulysses]

It is definitely a rightist movement.

[JB]

Stalin G. is definitely a rightist.

James Petras, who I take with a boulder of salt, reported recently that various "ultraleft" groups are looking to provoke violence before the vote, and that in this (supposed) CIA memo, they looked past the "Marxist" vocabulary of these groups to the role they are playing.

I don't know.

What does seem clear is that this could be a turning point in VZ, to an open campaign for socialism and some of the authority necessary to cut through institutional resistance to a radicalized social democracy.

If I were in Venezuela, I would be not just voting "yes" – but actively campaigning for it.

[sepher]

On behalf of imprisoned Iranian activists of the labor movement Madadi, Osanlu and Salehi, on behalf of imprisoned students and women of Iran, I declare: "MR. CHAVEZ IS A DEMAGOGUE AND VERBOSE CHARLATAN AND THE FRIEND OF IRANIAN BUTCHERS."

[a non statist]

Why suprised, the last place you will see principles is from a real politik derived statist

boo bye

[ShineThePath]

Ah sectarian subjective declarations!

[zerohour]

Any thoughts on Chavez's recent statement abut putting the socialist agenda "on hold" for now?