CNT on chavez

130 posts / 0 new
Last post
Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Mar 26 2007 10:23

i'm not sure how/if it differs from unemployment benefit, but it was sold as a wage for socially useful work. no idea if gws are tankies or not though tbh.

Jason Cortez
Offline
Joined: 14-11-04
Mar 26 2007 10:27

Global Women Strike and Wages for Housework love Chavez precisely because of Article 88, it is the realisation of their dreams (at least in one country )at last. Selma James was founding mother of WFH

Andibachev
Offline
Joined: 26-03-07
Mar 26 2007 12:33

Hi guys, newbie
Whats with all this anti-Chavattitude? Do you not recgonize him and Venezuelas role in the anti-imperailst movement? It's easy to criticise people just because they may appear to be in the firing line of your governments, but take a second and think, who's doing greater good for their people? Chavez or Bush?

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Mar 26 2007 12:40

hey Andibachev, there was a recent thread on 'Communal Councils' in Venezuela which might give you an idea of the criticisms people here have of chavez

Jacques Roux's picture
Jacques Roux
Offline
Joined: 17-07-06
Mar 26 2007 12:42
Andibachev wrote:
Hi guys, newbie
Whats with all this anti-Chavattitude? Do you not recgonize him and Venezuelas role in the anti-imperailst movement? It's easy to criticise people just because they may appear to be in the firing line of your governments, but take a second and think, who's doing greater good for their people? Chavez or Bush?

Welcome to the forums A. How'd you find the site? I suggest you read through the forums a bit to get an idea what you people here think, rather than just jumping straight in. Have a look for some threads on imperialism for one. And I don't think anyone's view on Chavez has anything to do with what their government says about him.

Andibachev
Offline
Joined: 26-03-07
Mar 26 2007 14:04

Read that link- thanks Joseph, it seems the main opposition to Chavez seems to be the idea that he would Nationalise your business interests or family. Surely this statement is like saying, "what if Hitler came back and turned everyone into Nazis?" The statement makes no sense, Chavez isn't going to blindy appropriate your interests, only those whose interests don't serve the people of Venezuela and their agenda.
Look back at the food stores incident a month back- the business owners didn't want to loose money selling their stock for an affordable price, so they started hording it and literally attempted to starve the people of Venezeula- Chavez moved the troops in to reclaim the food and distributed it in markets at an even cheaper price.
Now in that instance there- who was bullied by a repressive state? Those most deserving of it, middle-man businessmen who bought the food for a dirt cheap price from the farmers, and were trying to sell it for a massive price, profiting only themselves.
If fair distribution of food stuffs to a population starved by the corporate agenda is the actions of a madman dictator, then you can call me a subordinate to the kaiser, 'cos i'd support him. wink

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Mar 26 2007 14:15
Andibachev wrote:
Read that link- thanks Joseph, it seems the main opposition to Chavez seems to be the idea that he would Nationalise your business interests or family. Surely this statement is like saying, "what if Hitler came back and turned everyone into Nazis?" The statement makes no sense, Chavez isn't going to blindy appropriate your interests, only those whose interests don't serve the people of Venezuela and their agenda.

that certainly isn't the basis of my criticism (i don't own anything worth nationalising btw wink). i'm critical of nationalisation like i'm critical of privatisation; it's a change of boss usually used to undermine workers' conditions (in the name of 'the people' or 'the national interest' in the case of the former when workers are strong, in the name of 'efficiency' and 'cold hard economic facts' in the case of the latter when workers are weak).

Chavez may offer a 'nicer' capitalism in the way that a welfare state is nicer than a neoliberal one (though this is ambiguous from the stats cited in chavez's defence on the linked thread), but such choice of leaders has nothing to do with the real (class) struggles that offer a way out of capitalism, and Chavez's tendency to substitute state action for working class struggle (whatever his intentions) seems likely to short-circuit such struggles and encourage workers to associate revolutionary change with governments and elections and not in their own power as the creators of this world.

(for the record, i don't think chavez is a 'madman dictator' or anything like that, in terms of bourgeois democracy he's probably the most legitimate head of state in the world)

Andibachev
Offline
Joined: 26-03-07
Mar 26 2007 14:31

Nationalisation and Privatisation are different... like I need to explain this; privatisation puts total control under a faceless corporation, whereas nationalisation puts the control under (usually) democratically elected officials, answerable to the consequences of their actions. However nationalisation in each case is subject to the actions of the elected government, and what their own agenda is. In the case of Chavez' government, the agenda is power to the people (in a way) and anti-US imperalism and domination in Latin America, and strengthening ties with like-minded powers in other countires.
If Chavez' government, with the interests of the people in mind, were to nationalise a portion of vital industries, than that wouldn't be a bad thing at all, bearing in mind the "capitalist welfare state" exists to help people living in poverty, and the system would be abscent of the corporate expolitation, so... surely this is a good thing?

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Mar 26 2007 14:57
Andibachev wrote:
Nationalisation and Privatisation are different... like I need to explain this

of course, which wasn't my point - which particular boss holds the title deeds is of no particular interest, what is of interest is our material conditions. as it happens nationalisation is more effective at co-opting a militant working class, privatisation is more effective at decomposing a weak one - but we shouldn't mistake these strategies for the conditions which give rise to them.

As old joe hill said, "the interests of 'the people' and the working class have nothing in common," the point is communism is the self-emancipation of the working class, deferring our power to the state ('democratic' or otherwise) to act on our behalf brings us nowhere closer to this, further away in fact. i mean the NHS benefits the working class, that doesn't mean anarchists/communists should come out in support of the Tory party who say they will save it, or Clement Attlee's government who created it - we act independently of the state in our own interests, because our interests are incompatible with both the state and the market.

Andibachev wrote:
the system would be abscent of the corporate expolitation

what do you mean by exploitation? because as far as i'm aware wage labour, commodity production and the subordination of living labour to capital are all alive and well in venezuela.

tigersiskillers
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Mar 26 2007 17:11
Andibachev wrote:
Nationalisation and Privatisation are different... like I need to explain this; privatisation puts total control under a faceless corporation, whereas nationalisation puts the control under (usually) democratically elected officials, answerable to the consequences of their actions. However nationalisation in each case is subject to the actions of the elected government, and what their own agenda is. In the case of Chavez' government, the agenda is power to the people (in a way) and anti-US imperalism and domination in Latin America, and strengthening ties with like-minded powers in other countires.
If Chavez' government, with the interests of the people in mind, were to nationalise a portion of vital industries, than that wouldn't be a bad thing at all, bearing in mind the "capitalist welfare state" exists to help people living in poverty, and the system would be abscent of the corporate expolitation, so... surely this is a good thing?

Hi Andi

Nationalisation and Privatisation are different, but neither places control in the hands of their workers and community. Don't get me wrong, I personally think that Chavez' election has opened up possibilities and a social space that might lead to fundamental change, but if that happens I think that will be in the hands of the Venezualan people themselves.

Mark.
Offline
Joined: 11-02-07
Mar 26 2007 17:46
Andibachev wrote:
Whats with all this anti-Chavattitude? Do you not recgonize him and Venezuelas role in the anti-imperailst movement? It's easy to criticise people just because they may appear to be in the firing line of your governments, but take a second and think, who's doing greater good for their people? Chavez or Bush?

Andibachev - I don't know enough about Chavez to add much but you could try looking at the website for El Libertario from Venezuela. It has an English language section: http://www.nodo50.org/ellibertario/

OliverTwister's picture
OliverTwister
Offline
Joined: 10-10-05
Mar 26 2007 23:34

BTW what's up with Chavistas coming on here and assuming that everyone are idiots?

EdmontonWobbly's picture
EdmontonWobbly
Offline
Joined: 25-03-06
Mar 26 2007 23:53

I know that the folks from the steering committee from the Hands Off Venezuela campaign read these threads though they don't post.

Andibachev
Offline
Joined: 26-03-07
Mar 27 2007 08:40
Quote:
privatisation is more effective at decomposing a weak one

What about Thatcher? Wasn't privatisation bought in around the time when the British Working Class movement was at it's strongest?

Quote:
what do you mean by exploitation? because as far as i'm aware wage labour, commodity production and the subordination of living labour to capital are all alive and well in venezuela.

As we all know, corporate exploitation exists everywhere in poverty stricken parts of Latin America, and a lot of other places too- actually, I wasn't refering to wages when I wrote that, I was thinking about the corporate privatisation of the drinking water in a south American country (probably Bolivia) where the companies bought everything up and we selling clean water at a price no-one could possibly afford on their meager wages- it got to a point when the companies had a law passed that gave them the rights over the water that fell from the sky, and charged people for it, giving out heavy fines andjail terms to those who tried to collect it without a lisence. Now that is a prime example of corporate greed and exploitation.

Quote:
BTW what's up with Chavistas coming on here and assuming that everyone are idiots?

Are you Khrushvchev? suddenly declaring yourself and others [i]"something"[i]istas?

Khrushchev in New York after meeting Fidel;
[i]I don't know whether Fidel is a communist, but I know i'm a [b]Fidelista[b]!"[i]

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Mar 27 2007 08:52
Andibachev wrote:
As we all know, corporate exploitation exists everywhere in poverty stricken parts of Latin America, and a lot of other places too- actually, I wasn't refering to wages when I wrote that, I was thinking about the corporate privatisation of the drinking water in a south American country (probably Bolivia) where the companies bought everything up and we selling clean water at a price no-one could possibly afford on their meager wages- it got to a point when the companies had a law passed that gave them the rights over the water that fell from the sky, and charged people for it, giving out heavy fines andjail terms to those who tried to collect it without a lisence. Now that is a prime example of corporate greed and exploitation.

Cochabamba in Bolivia, iirc. ok, i see what you mean.

Andibachev wrote:
What about Thatcher? Wasn't privatisation bought in around the time when the British Working Class movement was at it's strongest?

i probably over-simplified when privatisation/nationalisation is useful, i was thinking more the sweeping privatisations/PFIs in the public sector today which are meeting little resistance (thanks to a combination of union obstruction and low class militancy), but didn't thatcher's privatisations follow the defeat of the miners? (e.g. i thought the remaining pits were privatised in the 90s?) Thatcher was certainly very confrontational, say what you like she was an unashamed class warrior, but that doesn't mean nationalisations can't be used to contain a militant working class aswell - private capitalist or state capitalist, it's still capitalism, wage labour etc.

Andibachev
Offline
Joined: 26-03-07
Mar 27 2007 09:02
Quote:
but that doesn't mean nationalisations can't be used to contain a militant working class aswell - private capitalist or state capitalist, it's still capitalism, wage labour etc.

True, but like I said, if that particular Nationalisation has the working class agenda (militant or otherwise), then it can only serve to focus, and even direct the force of that class.
It's got to a point that people associate nationalisation with groups like the British National Party- again, it depends on who's pulling the strings behind the scenes, if it's a "good" government with the working peoples interests in mind, then the chances are that nationalisation will give great benefits to the people of that country, cases in Cuba certianly; nationalisation with a working class agenda is essentially a form of working modern communism.

Andibachev
Offline
Joined: 26-03-07
Mar 27 2007 09:11
Quote:
Good governments

I put it in quote marks to imply sarcasm, but I suppose it went right over your head. I can't seem to get the italics to work. sad

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Mar 27 2007 09:16

i'm pretty sure the "good" government of cuba smashed the workers' movement (including the anarcho-syndicalists), if communism is the self-emancipation of the working class, how has a government (allegedly) acting on our behalf got anything to do with it?

Andibachev
Offline
Joined: 26-03-07
Mar 27 2007 09:34
Quote:
it didn't really make sense cos your whole arguments rests on the idea that governments can and do push pro working class agendas.

Not our government (assume this site has a UK fan base), i'm talking about what Chavez is trying to accomplish.

Quote:
if communism is the self-emancipation of the working class, how has a government (allegedly) acting on our behalf got anything to do with it?

I remember there were a fair few former Anarcho-Syndicalists participating in the Bay of Pigs, and if that was the case then it seems likely that they helped out in Operation Mongoose (Kennedys CIA approved terrorist bombs in Cuba) although Castro made the first move against them, so it' all fair in love and war then wink While things are never as clear cut as this; some people are either for or against Castro on his own merits, it's undeniable that he's accomplished some really beneficial changes in Cuba, literacy programs, healthcare reform- not to mention the Cuban exportation of this to other parts of Latin American, Africa, and the former Soviet Union back in the day.

tigersiskillers
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Mar 27 2007 09:42
Andibachev wrote:
it depends on who's pulling the strings behind the scenes, if it's a "good" government with the working peoples interests in mind, then the chances are that nationalisation will give great benefits to the people of that country, cases in Cuba certianly; nationalisation with a working class agenda is essentially a form of working modern communism.

The point is though that no institution external to the working class can truly have a working class agenda. A relatively benign paternalist bureaucracy may be better than rampant private control, but I don't want to swap a capitalist ruling class for a bureacratic one.

Andibachev
Offline
Joined: 26-03-07
Mar 27 2007 09:55
Quote:
so you think that we can't have 'good governments' but other countries can?

Oh, my mistake, I forgot how great Labour is, i'm always distracted from that fact while our troops are getting killed overseas in an illegal war, and the CCTV cameras follow me down the street.

Quote:
You're not making any sense you daft twat.

Silly bugger.

Quote:
but I don't want to swap a capitalist ruling class for a bureacratic one.

We've got both- a hybrid bureacratic and capitalist ruling class, which is why the only thing that gets done is the things that tax us more or bring in more filthy, filthy money for their pockets.

tigersiskillers
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Mar 27 2007 10:02
Andibachev wrote:
Quote:
but I don't want to swap a capitalist ruling class for a bureacratic one.

We've got both- a hybrid bureacratic and capitalist ruling class, which is why the only thing that gets done is the things that tax us more or bring in more filthy, filthy money for their pockets.

Not really my point. Let me put it another way. What I want is working class self-management. This is antithetical to a society administered from the top down, the 'communism' you described.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Mar 27 2007 10:42
Andibachev wrote:
I remember there were a fair few former Anarcho-Syndicalists participating in the Bay of Pigs

You what? Where the hell is your evidence for that?

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Mar 27 2007 10:44

chavez supporters do have an uncanny knack of slurring anarchists as CIA stooges without any evidence neutral (remembering the rise vs el libertario thread)

Andibachev
Offline
Joined: 26-03-07
Mar 27 2007 11:00
Quote:
chavez supporters do have an uncanny knack of slurring anarchists as CIA stooges without any evidence (remembering the rise vs el libertario thread)

Quote:
You what? Where the hell is your evidence for that?

The Anar/Synd's weren't happy about getting shafted by Castro (in a sense), so they tried to gather support amongst the comparitively small group of people who didn't approve of the revolution and were packing their bags for Miami, a portion of these people who found themselves in the US detention camps were then interrogated and recruited by the CIA to take part in the Bay of Pigs. Remember that the people who either fled or were expatriated were in support of Batista, and had links to the military, making themselves a great choice to provide physical and propaganda support the mercenaries who'd invade. Remember also there were numbers amongst the dead who were identified afterwards as being former Batista supporters.
The Anar/Synds wanted a great Anarchist society to develop out of the revolution, due to external circumstances (US applying crushing pressure and the Soviet Union coming to help out) this was impossible, as Cuba needed defense agaisnt it's bullying nextdoor neighbour. Cuba couldn't become an Anarchist wetdream because it had to ally itself with the one thing that would guarantee protection from another invasion, they found this from the Communist Soviets.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Mar 27 2007 11:04

that appears to be conjecture, not evidence. here we go again.

(i mean it's possible, but i'd like evidence like)

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Mar 27 2007 11:46

You saying something on the internet isn't evidence. Where is your evidence?

Andibachev
Offline
Joined: 26-03-07
Mar 27 2007 12:53

Amongst the recorded dead after the Bay of Pigs numerous Batistas were found amongst them.
The place to look for the evidence would be the records of the expatriated or the refugees who landed in Miami, the US isn't willing to release the better part of those records, which speaks volumes, even if we can't read them.
It may be speculation, but it's a logical conclusion.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Mar 27 2007 12:55
Andibachev wrote:
Amongst the recorded dead after the Bay of Pigs numerous Batistas were found amongst them.
The place to look for the evidence would be the records of the expatriated or the refugees who landed in Miami, the US isn't willing to release the better part of those records, which speaks volumes, even if we can't read them.
It may be speculation, but it's a logical conclusion.

it's a logical conclusion that supporters of military dictators are anarchists? wtf? confused

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Mar 27 2007 12:59
Andibachev wrote:
It may be speculation, but it's a logical conclusion.

Right so you invent something, with the justification that supporters of a dictator were there, so logically anarchists were as well, and present it as fact.

I can see that discussion with you is certainly going to be productive and worthwhile roll eyes