Friday, August 20, 2010
ANARCHIST THEORY:
STATE AND CLASS:
I originally saw the following item on the Miami Autonomy and Solidarity site. The original source is an exciting new website Havana Times written from a progressive viewpoint but with none of the displaced mindless patriotism so typical of western leftists who worship foreign dictatorships.
I would certainly not characterize Havana Times as anarchist, but many of the items there are things that few anarchists could disagree with. I found the following interesting despite having my own disagreements with some of the author's opinions. Like many, perhaps most, anarchists the author characterizes state socialist regimes as being essentially "state capitalist". I disagree, and I think "managerial" is a better word just as it is for the societies in which most of us live ie so-called "capitalist" regimes. My reason is the overwhelming way in which prices are set and resources allocated in such regimes, a manner remote from the idealized "capitalism" of a century ago (though "capitalism" was always a mixed economy in any case) where they were supposed to be set by market competition. In the case of Marxist dictatorships the word is even less apt because the supposed labour market consisting of those free to sell their labour to the highest bidder is a total fantasy. The labour "market" under Marxism is closer to that of theocratic slave states or serfdom than it is to "capitalism".
I also disagree that a system of de jure government ownership and de facto self management would be anything resembling a stable arrangement. I admit its theoretical possibility and actual probability over a long term transition to real self management. With the proviso, of course, that the controllers of the state would continually try to expand their power at the expense of actual self managed socialism.
All that being said the following is a perceptive look at the difference between legal fictions of ownership and the actual realities of social power. Well worth reading.
SCSCSCSCSC
State Owned Doesn’t Mean Socialist
HAVANA TIMES, April 27 — Recently in Granma, the newspaper of the Communist Party of Cuba, an article appeared about the economic efficiency of “socialist government enterprises” in the armed forces (4/16/10).
In the spirit of helping to clarify certain concepts, I have attempted to provide a few, more precise, details here.
Apparently the comrades who wrote about the Military Agricultural Union “socialist government enterprise,” based themselves on the identification of state and socialist property by virtue of the fact that this property belongs to the Cuban state; they assume that all state property is, de jure, socialist. However, what gives a property its social character —be it socialist or capitalist— is the form of its operation and the appropriation of its output, not its legal form.
This confusion was introduced in socialist theory by those who mistook estatización (state ownership) for socialization. They thought that for property to be socialized, it was sufficient to place it under state ownership and then hold the state sacred above the rest of society.
The social character of a company is one thing and the legal structure of its ownership is something else. The social character of property is determined by the form in which it is put to use, by the way in which work is organized, the mode of production (based on slave, serf, wage or freely associated labor) and the way in which the surplus obtained is distributed. This is independent of the property’s legal structure, which can be state-owned, collective or privately owned. This said, the natural tendency is for the content (the social character) of property to determine its legal form (structure), not the other way around.
Certainly, a government enterprise that exploits wage labor can be efficient. There are many examples of this throughout the entire capitalist world , even in the USA, England and Japan.
However, though the legal form of such property is state-owned, those companies are not socialist. They are capitalist because they respond to the capitalist logic of obtaining profits through wage labor, which in this case is appropriated by the state. As a corollary, when that state seeks the “well being” of the workers, with fairer distribution, this is what characterizes social democracy.
So what if the state is in the hands of the workers?” the statists might ask.
The same thing would happen as what has occurred in every “worker’s state”: the workers would continue being paid a wage (which would not be determined by the level of production), they would have no ownership or usufruct relationship with the means of production, and they would not participate in the distribution of profits.
On behalf of socialism, all those tasks would be overseen by a bureaucratic stratum, which in the long run —as has always occurred— winds up as the bureau-bourgeoisie (“the accidental class,” as described by Russian academics) who appropriate the means of production and the surpluses, and plunge the working class into deeper misery.
That “working class,” harnessed to their new capitalists (the bureaucrats), would not bring new production relations with them, since these laborers still would not have understood their need to liquidate themselves as a working class and become a new class of freely associated workers…of cultured cooperativists, the new class that bears the new production relations.
The government enterprise that exploits wage labor, seeks profits and concentrates the surplus in a few hands is in fact a state capitalist company given its content…given its social character.
Its juridical state form doesn’t matter. This was what all the confusion was around concerning “state socialism,” which never transcended the limits of state monopoly capitalism. This clearly occurred in Russia but also in Cuba.
Wage labor is what characterizes the form of capitalist exploitation, while freely-associated, cooperative or autogestionario (self-managed) work is the generic form of organizing socialist labor.
For the social character of a company to be described as socialist (it doesn’t matter if the property legally belongs to the state or the collective of workers) it must be managed through socialist methods – not capitalists ones; this is to say, with cooperative and self-managerial forms of work and management by freely associated workers who are directed and managed in a collective and democratic way by the workers themselves.
This would even include the election of management, which should be revolving, and the equal distribution of part of the profits (after paying taxes and other expenses due to the state and leaving another part for the extended reproduction of the company, emergency funds and other reserves).
Even under capitalism there are properties that are legally collective, but that in and of itself doesn’t make them socialist. This is the case of the corporation, which legally belongs to its community of shareholders, a few or many of whom might work for that same company. However by organizing itself into a capitalist form of operation —that’s to say with wage labor, with hierarchical forms of management and control of the surplus by a group of owners who control most of the shares— it continues essentially as a capitalist company given its social character, even when it constitutes the first form of the decomposition of capital.
This is what they deceivingly refer to as “popular capitalism,” which capitalists sought to present as an alternative to cooperativist socialism.
Likewise, there exists property that is private by its legal form and socialist by its self-managerial social form of operation. This is the case of many small family-owned businesses, which manage the company democratically, distribute the profits equally and do not exploit wage labor.
Socialist government enterprises would be those where the state maintains the ownership of the means of production in a legal form, but where the social form of its operation is carried out in a socialist, self-managerial and cooperative manner. This would be the case of a type of company that is co-managed between the state and the workers.
By the same token, just as cooperatives are socialist firms in capitalist countries, it’s possible for there to exit in socialist countries reminiscences of capitalist companies (not in name, but because some day cooperative and self-management types of freely associated production relations will prevail), be they state, private or mixed ownership.
The interesting experience of Perfeccionamiento Empresarial (Managerial Improvement), originally conceived and applied in the Cuban armed forces (MINFAR), was a step forward in connection with the traditional statist wage-labor scheme, though still without breaking from it.
State Owned Doesn’t Mean Socialist
HAVANA TIMES, April 27 — Recently in Granma, the newspaper of the Communist Party of Cuba, an article appeared about the economic efficiency of “socialist government enterprises” in the armed forces (4/16/10).
In the spirit of helping to clarify certain concepts, I have attempted to provide a few, more precise, details here.
Apparently the comrades who wrote about the Military Agricultural Union “socialist government enterprise,” based themselves on the identification of state and socialist property by virtue of the fact that this property belongs to the Cuban state; they assume that all state property is, de jure, socialist. However, what gives a property its social character —be it socialist or capitalist— is the form of its operation and the appropriation of its output, not its legal form.
This confusion was introduced in socialist theory by those who mistook estatización (state ownership) for socialization. They thought that for property to be socialized, it was sufficient to place it under state ownership and then hold the state sacred above the rest of society.
The social character of a company is one thing and the legal structure of its ownership is something else. The social character of property is determined by the form in which it is put to use, by the way in which work is organized, the mode of production (based on slave, serf, wage or freely associated labor) and the way in which the surplus obtained is distributed. This is independent of the property’s legal structure, which can be state-owned, collective or privately owned. This said, the natural tendency is for the content (the social character) of property to determine its legal form (structure), not the other way around.
Certainly, a government enterprise that exploits wage labor can be efficient. There are many examples of this throughout the entire capitalist world , even in the USA, England and Japan.
However, though the legal form of such property is state-owned, those companies are not socialist. They are capitalist because they respond to the capitalist logic of obtaining profits through wage labor, which in this case is appropriated by the state. As a corollary, when that state seeks the “well being” of the workers, with fairer distribution, this is what characterizes social democracy.
So what if the state is in the hands of the workers?” the statists might ask.
The same thing would happen as what has occurred in every “worker’s state”: the workers would continue being paid a wage (which would not be determined by the level of production), they would have no ownership or usufruct relationship with the means of production, and they would not participate in the distribution of profits.
On behalf of socialism, all those tasks would be overseen by a bureaucratic stratum, which in the long run —as has always occurred— winds up as the bureau-bourgeoisie (“the accidental class,” as described by Russian academics) who appropriate the means of production and the surpluses, and plunge the working class into deeper misery.
That “working class,” harnessed to their new capitalists (the bureaucrats), would not bring new production relations with them, since these laborers still would not have understood their need to liquidate themselves as a working class and become a new class of freely associated workers…of cultured cooperativists, the new class that bears the new production relations.
The government enterprise that exploits wage labor, seeks profits and concentrates the surplus in a few hands is in fact a state capitalist company given its content…given its social character.
Its juridical state form doesn’t matter. This was what all the confusion was around concerning “state socialism,” which never transcended the limits of state monopoly capitalism. This clearly occurred in Russia but also in Cuba.
Wage labor is what characterizes the form of capitalist exploitation, while freely-associated, cooperative or autogestionario (self-managed) work is the generic form of organizing socialist labor.
For the social character of a company to be described as socialist (it doesn’t matter if the property legally belongs to the state or the collective of workers) it must be managed through socialist methods – not capitalists ones; this is to say, with cooperative and self-managerial forms of work and management by freely associated workers who are directed and managed in a collective and democratic way by the workers themselves.
This would even include the election of management, which should be revolving, and the equal distribution of part of the profits (after paying taxes and other expenses due to the state and leaving another part for the extended reproduction of the company, emergency funds and other reserves).
Even under capitalism there are properties that are legally collective, but that in and of itself doesn’t make them socialist. This is the case of the corporation, which legally belongs to its community of shareholders, a few or many of whom might work for that same company. However by organizing itself into a capitalist form of operation —that’s to say with wage labor, with hierarchical forms of management and control of the surplus by a group of owners who control most of the shares— it continues essentially as a capitalist company given its social character, even when it constitutes the first form of the decomposition of capital.
This is what they deceivingly refer to as “popular capitalism,” which capitalists sought to present as an alternative to cooperativist socialism.
Likewise, there exists property that is private by its legal form and socialist by its self-managerial social form of operation. This is the case of many small family-owned businesses, which manage the company democratically, distribute the profits equally and do not exploit wage labor.
Socialist government enterprises would be those where the state maintains the ownership of the means of production in a legal form, but where the social form of its operation is carried out in a socialist, self-managerial and cooperative manner. This would be the case of a type of company that is co-managed between the state and the workers.
By the same token, just as cooperatives are socialist firms in capitalist countries, it’s possible for there to exit in socialist countries reminiscences of capitalist companies (not in name, but because some day cooperative and self-management types of freely associated production relations will prevail), be they state, private or mixed ownership.
The interesting experience of Perfeccionamiento Empresarial (Managerial Improvement), originally conceived and applied in the Cuban armed forces (MINFAR), was a step forward in connection with the traditional statist wage-labor scheme, though still without breaking from it.
Labels: anarchism, anarchist theory, class, cooperativism, Cuba, Havana Times, Marxism, Miami Autonomy and Solidarity, New Class, socialism, statism
Sunday, July 18, 2010
INTERNATIONAL ANARCHIST MOVEMENT CUBA:
SCREENING OF 'VIVIR LA UTOPIA' IN HAVANA:
Molly received the following event notice from the Movimiento Libertario Cubano a few days ago. As I write this the screening of 'Vivir la Utopia' (Living Utopia) is going on in of all places Havana Cuba. This movie which can be downloaded from either Anticopyright or Anarchopedia (both in Spanish with English subtitles) is a documentary on the Spanish Revolution filmed from an anarchist perspective. I had a look. Quite an interesting movie actually.
Too much shouldn't be made of this. On the surface it might seem that the Cuban dictatorship is losing control of its people even more than it might seem from news reports (concessions to dissidents, etc.). An anarchist film screening in the heart of Havana ! As with many such things, however, what is too good to be true is just that. The sponsoring academic groups, La Càtedra Haydée Santamaría and the Asociación Hermanos Saíz are not anarchist. Whatever they say about "self-management" they appear to be groups of academics who have been given a relatively long leash to "explore" by the Dictatorship. Looks like they are pushing the envelope a bit with this one. With that in mind here's the MLC's announcement.
CACACACACA
Cuban Libertarian Movement
Cuban Libertarian Movement
This Sunday the Libertarian Workshop "Alfredo Lopez of the Chair Haydee Santamaria invites you to:
Soggy - TRIBUTE
"Living utopia: 74 years after the beginning of social revolution in Spain "
In July 1936, 74 years ago, the so called " Spanish Civil War" , started, "a term by which some have tried to erase the memory of a deep popular and proletarian social revolution carried out by urban and rural workers' collectives , women's organizations , etc. , inspired by the libertarian principles of horizontal organization and direct action , deeply rooted in the popular work of anarcho-syndicalism and the dense network of legendary " affinity groups "of anarchists , which crystallized in the alliance of the Iberian Anarchist Federation and the National Confederation of Labour Central ( FAI- CNT) in the 60 years prior to 1936.
The documentary "Living Utopia "(1997) collects through the memory of thirty protagonists the massive social reconstruction efforts meant by the organization in agricultural collectives of around 7 million peasants , about 3,000 self-managed factories and enterprises in a network and , the organization of almost 150 000 anarchist militants fighting a war against the army of Franco.
We look forward to your positive energy .
________________________________________
DATE: 18/07/2010 / TIME : 2:00 PM / LOCATION: # 69 # 12 806 E/128 And MARIANAO 128B (from the corner of the Plaza de Marianao , 5 blocks inside and 2 to the right) .
Soggy - TRIBUTE
"Living utopia: 74 years after the beginning of social revolution in Spain "
In July 1936, 74 years ago, the so called " Spanish Civil War" , started, "a term by which some have tried to erase the memory of a deep popular and proletarian social revolution carried out by urban and rural workers' collectives , women's organizations , etc. , inspired by the libertarian principles of horizontal organization and direct action , deeply rooted in the popular work of anarcho-syndicalism and the dense network of legendary " affinity groups "of anarchists , which crystallized in the alliance of the Iberian Anarchist Federation and the National Confederation of Labour Central ( FAI- CNT) in the 60 years prior to 1936.
The documentary "Living Utopia "(1997) collects through the memory of thirty protagonists the massive social reconstruction efforts meant by the organization in agricultural collectives of around 7 million peasants , about 3,000 self-managed factories and enterprises in a network and , the organization of almost 150 000 anarchist militants fighting a war against the army of Franco.
We look forward to your positive energy .
________________________________________
DATE: 18/07/2010 / TIME : 2:00 PM / LOCATION: # 69 # 12 806 E/128 And MARIANAO 128B (from the corner of the Plaza de Marianao , 5 blocks inside and 2 to the right) .
Labels: anarchism, anarchist films, Cuba, Cuban Libertarian Movement, events, films, international anarchist movement, Vivir La Utopia
Sunday, February 22, 2009
INTERNATIONAL POLITICS-CUBA:
SELF MANAGEMENT IN CUBA ?????????????:
Over at the Porkupine Blog our good comrade Larry Gambone has brought forward a debate that is presently going on amongst the ruling class of Cuba. The present nominal dictator of that island seems to be following the course of death laid out by Generalissimo Franco, who he so much resembles. One piece at a time. Meanwhile the apparatchiks are jockeying for power and influence before the inevitable. What is not in doubt is that the economic, political and social system of Cuba will change with the death of the dictator. The question is "how will it change ?". Gambone argues that there is a faction of the ruling class that is willing to move towards a libertarian form of socialism, self management. Molly thinks that this portion of the Communist ruling class is inevitably small and doomed to lose. First of all it must only profit minimally from the present situation or it would advocate "no change". Second of all it has to see little opportunity to loot the public treasury after the end of Leninism, as was done in eastern Europe. This restricts and diminishes it even further.No doubt there are legitimate "idealists" in the apparat (despite the inevitable corrupting influence of power and privilege, especially communist power and privilege ), but they will be voices crying in the wilderness unless there is a mass base for their proposals. In any case, despite my expectations, see the Porkupine Blog for the details of the debate.
Labels: communism, Cuba, Fidel Castro, international politics, Larry Gambone, Leninism, Porkupine Blog, self management
Monday, September 22, 2008
INTERNATIONAL ANARCHIST MOVEMENT-CUBA:
SOLIDARITY WITH CUBAN ANARCHIST MUSICIANS:
The following reprint is from the A-Infos website, put up there on September 20th. It was, in turn copies from an earlier item on the Class War website last August 29. While the matter discussed is now "dated" as Gorki Aguila has been released with a fine of 600 pesos, as people who can read Spanish can find out at his band's website, Molly finds this still worthy of mentioning for several reasons.
One is that she has discussed the band before on this blog, and feels that the fact of its existence merits repeating.
Another reason is once more remind libertarian socialists of the Movimiento Libertario Cubano (Cuban Libertarian Movement) and its existence.
Yet another reason is perhaps to give a big "tsk,tsk" to A-Infos for reprinting matter over 3 weeks old without checking for its current status. Not that Molly hasn't been guilty of this at times, but it is something that should be avoided. I think my worst sin in this regard is to reprint callouts where half the events are already over, but others are still to come. So, from one sinner to another,....check first.
The band's site is full of information on the case of this arrest and also many others, with reports of beatings by the Cuban security forces. But what really caught my eye was the following sentence describing the "reduction of charges" that got Aguila off the hook with only a fine:
"La acusatión cambió de "peligrosidad predelictiva" a desobediencia".
Now....stop and think, if you are anarchist who should theoretically value liberty, about the implications of any support to a regime where "disobedience" is considered a criminal offense. The Castro regime is actually the sort of paradise that the religious right would imagine. All that's fine and good, but I also had supreme difficulty in translating the first charges. "Peligrosidad" is easy..."dangerousness", but what on Earth is "predelictiva" ? It obviously bears some relationship to the English word "predilection", often misspelled as "predelection" and translated into the Spanish as "predilección" . I try my handy Spanish/English Larousse. No luck. I also try five online dictionaries. Still no luck. Was this just some sort of spelling mistake on the part of the band's website ?
But then I check a little further into how the phrase "peligrosidad predelictiva" has actually been used. Yes, it is indeed defined in Cuban law, as the following:
"a person's special proclivity to commit offenses as demonstrated by conduct that is manifestly contrary to the norm of socialist morality".
In others words this bears a superficial resemblance to the term "habitual criminal", but the resemblance is indeed only superficial. First of all the "crimes" that are "contrary to socialist morality" include a wide range of simple political offenses (such as "disobedience"). Second, and perhaps most importantly, filing for a designation as an "habitual criminal" in regular law only happens subsequent to conviction for any number of actual offenses. In the law of a communist dictatorship this is what is known to fans of Orwell as a "thought crime". It can be brought as a charge totally separate from any recent offense. It's as if simply "having a bad attitude" were a crime in itself. Not that some other countries haven't tried to create such an offense, but under communism it has been both created and repeatedly used.
Finally, it is indeed possible that the word "predelictiva" actually does not exist in Spanish outside of the legal system of Cuba. It is entirely possible that this law is based on a definition of a misspelled word. This shows the uniqueness of communist tyranny. After all, who would dare to point out this fact.
And people wonder why I am anti-communist. But enough of my rants. Here's the article.
...........................
Cuba, FREE GORKI AGUILA IMMEDIATELY!:
Date Sat, 20 Sep 2008 14:24:55 +0300
At his home on Monday morning 25 August 2008. Gorki Aguila, founder member and vocalist with the Cuban punk band Porno Para Ricardo was arrested(yet again) at his home.
At his home on Monday morning 25 August 2008. Gorki Aguila, founder member and vocalist with the Cuban punk band Porno Para Ricardo was arrested(yet again) at his home.
---- The Cuban state’s harassment of Gorki Aguila and other Porno Para Ricardo members has been relentless ever since the group first emerged. Back in April this year we issued an appeal for “Urgent solidarity with young alternatives and the anarcho-punk movement in Cuba”, concentrating our attention on the Castroist authorities’ relentless harassment of the Porno Para Ricardo band and of Gorki Aguila in particular. And asking freedom lovers around the world to show active solidarity with the alternative and counter-cultural scene within Cuba and adding our voice to the campaign by the promoters of the Cuba Underground project in defending the physical well-being of the members of Porno Para Ricardo, as well as their relatives, friends and colleagues.
Today we reaffirm our unconditional support for all young anti-authoritarians who face in their daily lives oppression and exploitation at the hands of the bourgeois nationalist dictatorship which has been governing Cuba along absolutist lines for the past half century and we are launching the International Campaign for the Immediate Release of Gorki Aguila, calling for demonstrations outside Cuban embassies and consulates around the world and demanding his release and an end to the current witch-hunt against young alternatives and the anarcho-punk and anti-authoritarian movement on the island of Cuba.
We hope that this call will be taken up as it deserves to be by the international punk and anarchist movements.
For a free libertarian Cuba!
For Anarchy!
The Cuban Libertarian Movement. (MLC)
26 August 2008-08-27
Contact:
movimientolibertariocubano[at]gmail[dot]com
=============
Copied from Class War (Britain):http://www.londonclasswar.org/newswire/
----------------
See Also:
(en) Cuba, Movimiento Libertario Cubano Interview Porno Para Ricardo
(en) ALB interviews the Cuban Libertarian Movement
Labels: A-Infos, anarchism, communism, Cuba, Cuban Libertarian Movement, Pornopararicardo
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
INTERNATIONAL POLITICS-VENEZUELA:
MICHAEL ALBERT ON VENEZUELA:
The following was recently published on the Mostly Water site, a Canadian news aggregator. Its original source is the Z Communications site (see our Links section). What Molly finds most outstanding about this essay is that it resolutely refuses to "take sides" while, at the same time, raising all the necessary questions that should be asked about such "gleaming cities from afar" as Chavez's Venezuela. Molly has her own opinion of such matters, informed by a much more severe "class analysis" of what Albert calls the "coordinator class". But read and enjoy. All the questions that I could think of are raised here. One last comment. This essay is the same as others that I have republished from the Z-Net people. I don't agree with them totally, but the fact that I have to make NO grammatical or spelling corrections, unlike most of the anarchist sources that are presumably from English speaking people, says that they have, at least "clear thought". Good language is obvious evidence of clear thinking, whatever the fashion in academia may be these days.
....................................
Which Way Venezuela?
By Michael Albert;
By Michael Albert;
July, 24 2008
- Z Nethttp://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/18250
The diverse factual reports and other data included are culled from documents made available by the Venezuelan Embassy in the U.S.
The diverse factual reports and other data included are culled from documents made available by the Venezuelan Embassy in the U.S.
Venezuela's Bolivarian Revolution is exciting and exemplary, yet few people know much about where Venezuela is headed.
Misrepresentations abound. Data is limited and people interpret it in quite contrary ways. Information deficit plus skewed interpretations cause many people who ought to support the Bolivarian Revolution to instead doubt or even reject it. Useful lessons from Venezuela go largely unreported and thus have less than their widest possible effect.
Overview
Hugo Chavez became President in 1999 and in that year, largely due to the ravages of neoliberal reforms in the 80s and 90s, the Venezuelan poverty rate had reached 50%. The aim and promise of Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution was to not only eliminate rampant, raging, poverty, but to attain a new economic and social system consistent with the highest standards of human fulfillment and development.
In the 1999 constitution, Article 299, for example, emphasizes "human development" as the cornerstone of social judgements and Article 70 states that the "involvement of people in the exercise of their social and economic affairs should be manifest through citizen service organs, self-management, co-management, cooperatives in all forms, community enterprises, as well as other kinds of associations guided by the values of mutual cooperation and solidarity."
But, as many skeptics would point out, words are not deeds, and you can find nice words everywhere - including, say, in the constitutions of countries suffering dictatorship and economic and social injustice, as but one example, in the constitution and other literary organs of the Soviet Union under Stalin.
Words matter some, but they become infinitely more important and reliable as evidence if there are deeds in their support and particularly if institutional relations breathe life into the words every day.
So what about deeds?
Bolivarian Policies and Their Meaning
According to Venezuelan statistics, "unemployment has decreased from 14.7% in 1999 to 7.9% in 2008. Employment in the informal sector has decreased by 6.4% during that same time. The number of people living in poverty has decreased from 50.4% in 1998 to 33.6% in 2007 and the number of those living in extreme poverty has decreased from 20.3% to 9.6% in that same period. The Human Development Index (HDI) increased from 0.72 in 1998 to 0.8 in 2007, and during that time, the GINI coefficient (a measure of economic inequality) decreased from 0.49 to 0.42.5."
These changes, and many more statistical indices that could be offered - tell us there have been monumentally important improvements in the lives of many Venezuelans. But are those improvements a sign of a revolution going down a path that will lead to worthy ends including classlessness, social justice, etc.? Or are the improvements a sign of a corrupt and rotten version of familiar social structures having some of their most egregious excesses reigned back, but with no likelihood for fundamental change? Or are the improvements a marker of revolutionary change that will wind up in rotten results?
By analogy, are the gains worthy and hopeful for a hugely transformed future? Or are they like, say, gains we find in the U.S. under FDR or in Sweden transformed by social democrats? Good, but not fundamental. Or are the gains a sign of a process, temporarily serving diverse popular interests to win allies, but headed toward untoward final relations, like the Bolshevik process?
Why is it that some people see an unfolding revolution that they feel will wind up creating a new society in Venezuela and a beacon for humanity more widely? Yet other people see an unfolding struggle within existing relations, already causing some very wonderful and worthy gains, but going nowhere much beyond that? And other people see a process that is doing nice things at the moment, but which they believe is going to inexorably devolve into familiar authoritarian outcomes that will, in retrospect, compromise it all?
Is it that some people have more information to go on? Is it that there is enough information for all, but some read it one way - and others read it another way due to priori expectations or greater insight? Or is it that the information is vague, and we all tend to read into it based on whether hope or fear is momentarily most active in our consciousnesses?
I think all these reactions happen - and regardless of which is dominant, I am certain more information of a probing sort, getting at the heart of aims and methods, would help.
According to the Superintendence of Cooperatives (SUNACOOP), in Venezuela, there were 910 cooperatives nationwide in 1999, while by the end of 2007, that number had risen to 228,004. According to SUNACOOP, the cooperative sector in Venezuela now represents about 14% of Venezuela's GDP, and accounts for about 18% of employment in Venezuela. Most of the cooperatives fall under the service sector (61.29%) and the production sector (27%).
But what do these facts tell us? No one could deny that they reveal an incredible dynamism. But about ultimate aims... people will have different reactions.
In one reading, the facts noted indicate that the reform effort to make life better for the poor against the mega rich has utilized coops - a good thing. But in this reading, these facts are not the stuff of revolutionary transformation.
In another reading, the facts noted indicate that Venezuela is on the road to fundamentally transformed economic structures - a true revolution. More, folks with this reading see a revolution not just concerning property relations, but also concerning the division of labor and methods of decision making and remuneration. They see that in a world situation complicated by both a lack of revolutionary aspirations in much of the Venezuelan population and a hostile international context, the Bolivarian process is taking critical steps on the road to profound and worthy revolutionary changes which still are, however, a ways off.
In a third read, these facts show only that in Venezuela there is an appeal to poor constituencies - and while the associated reforms are good in their proximate implications for those constituencies, they are part of fundamental changes which lead in ultimately bad directions along paths we have seen revolutions travel before. Chavez says the Bolivarian goal isn't twentieth century socialism all over again - but doubters say, sure, what did you expect Chavez to say? Where's the evidence?
How does one know which read makes most sense, or even have a truly informed estimate?
We must know Venezuela's long term goals and methods as evidenced by structural lasting deeds. We must know how the changes taking place so far are viewed at different levels of society. We must know what steps the changes have involved and, even more so, what steps are in the pipeline to come? But we don't know these things. Do people who confidently say they know where Venezuela is going use tea leaves to read the future? More understandably, [do] they read into the future based on what they have seen elsewhere in times past - whether that is, for them, hopeful or fearful?
Looking Deeper
A report available from Venezuela points out that: "The rise of cooperatives began in 2001, with the Special Law of Cooperative Associations." It emphasizes the importance of the State in "promoting cooperatives through various mechanisms including education, improved access to financial services, direct tax exemption and the prioritization of cooperatives in public contracting" (Article 89). In fact, Venezuelan sources report, "economic growth accelerated in the year 2003 as a result of the implementation of these mechanisms through various state agencies."
Looking Deeper
A report available from Venezuela points out that: "The rise of cooperatives began in 2001, with the Special Law of Cooperative Associations." It emphasizes the importance of the State in "promoting cooperatives through various mechanisms including education, improved access to financial services, direct tax exemption and the prioritization of cooperatives in public contracting" (Article 89). In fact, Venezuelan sources report, "economic growth accelerated in the year 2003 as a result of the implementation of these mechanisms through various state agencies."
For example, one of the most important programs in this regard was the creation of the Vuelvan Caras Mission in early 2004. In its own self description, "this state-run program offers both technical education, such as classes in agriculture, tourism or construction, and orientation as to what the Bolivarian economic projects are about." Rather incredibly, "between March 2004 and August 2007, over 670,000 people completed the program, resulting in the creation of more than 10,000 cooperatives by its alumni, more than 3,000 of which pertain to the agricultural sector."
Is this worthy reform but no more?
Is this the first moves in an inspiring journey toward a truly classless economic and social structure?
Or is this a sop to the poor while establishing a new class rule and even authoritarianism, using but then failing to fulfill poor peoples' support?
Different people see the events in Venezuela differently - but what is missing to decide with real confidence what we think, is more information about what the goals are, about the extent to which the goals are widely shared and owned by leaders or by everyone, and what the methods are and how they connect up to the goals.
"Vuelvan Caras" is one of 25 "social missions," or state-sponsored social development programs, currently operating in Venezuela "in diverse fields of human development such as education, health, culture and nutrition. They are a fundamental part of Venezuela's policy of redistributing wealth and making basic social services accessible to all citizens. Studies have found that the social missions contributed to a 9.9% decrease in the poverty rate since 2003."
But what [do] the missions mean - writ larger?
When you compare the Venezuelan government's agendas and accomplishments to what, say, the U.S. government does for its less privileged and downright poor citizens, the contrast is incredibly stark. But still, having better government policies than the U.S. is not the same as having wonderful policies. So where is it going?
I am no expert, but my guess is if we were to look back at the New Deal in the U.S. we would be able to find, over a period of years, a great many comparable statistical achievements.
Similarly, I am sure that if we were to look at the Bolshevik transition in the Soviet Union from one harsh and horrible system, to what turned out to be another, we would again see a huge pile of innovative and positive, albeit it in some cases temporary, gains. And I think we can also easily comprehend how a sincere effort to really transform a capitalist, patriarchal, culturally divided, bureaucratic society into something fundamentally oriented to human well being and development could involve diverse steps like those we see in Venezuela, giving an extensive list of short term gains, but most important also leading forward in worthy new directions. So, again, for Venezuela - which is it?
In September 2007, "Vuelvan Caras" continued under its new name, "Che Guevara," to emphasize the incorporation of new elements into its educational plan. "This new plan aims to educate students about the distinctive socio-economic models that have been evolving over time, including, for example, the Social Production Enterprise (EPS) which is [a] model that has developed in Venezuela within the last few years." These EPSs are defined by the government as "economic entities dedicated to the production of goods or services in which work has its proper and authentic value, with no discrimination associated with any type of work, no privileges related to certain positions or hierarchies and with equality between its members, based on participative planning."
That certainly sounds very good - as words. But what about associated deeds? Are there really units being constructed that involve all actors in planning and decision making and that have real equality of material and social circumstance among members, including equitable remuneration? If there are, what is the make up of these units? What features do they have? What is the plan for those features to become core to the whole economy? Should we be optimistic about these innovations carrying forward? Should we be emulating lessons?
Venezuelans report - though almost no one outside hears the words much less critically engages with them - that "in practical terms, Social Production Enterprises represent an advanced cooperative model, where part of profits are invested into community projects."
Profits? How advanced is it as a real model for a better future, if there are still profits, albeit some enlightenment in their use? "Today, there are at least 3,060 Social Production Enterprises in Venezuela, representing about 30% of the supplier contract value with state enterprises." If these are all internally on a path to classlessness, this is major news, to say the least. If these units are modestly improving internal and broader social relations with nice social policies, it is very good news, but unstable and short of revolutionary. If they are on the path to authoritarianism, then there are nice aspects, but no hope for a truly enlightened future. So which is it? Limited reform, careful but innovative and hopeful revolution, or careful but familiar and not too hopeful revolution?
Oil and Venezuela?
PDVSA, Venezuela's state-owned oil company, we are told, "has taken a lead role in bringing about the move towards a new socio-economic model. 10% of the investment volume of every project carried out by PDVSA goes into a social fund that is used for projects in education, health, infrastructure or the social missions."
This is a good policy, of course, but if Mobil in the U.S. did the same, under pressure or due to a very innovative administration, what would that mean? It would be good, but how good? The answer would depend on whether it was just a temporary policy or a step on a revolutionary path - and on where that path was going.
PDVSA, we are told, "is supporting endogenous (or inward-focused) development in Venezuela. By working hand in hand with the private sector, they plan to invest $56 million in 6 large development projects until the year 2013."
Private sector? And will that persist? And if so, will it eventually bring back all the old crap?
In Venezuela, gas for autos and other vehicles is subsidized so that the price of a tank of gas for your car in Caracas, for example, is a tiny fraction of what people pay in Boston, New York, London, or Rome. What is the logic of this policy - which is ecologically and socially backward in so many respects, but persists due to popular desire? What does not tackling the retrograde approach tell us, if anything?
In 2004, we are told, "PDVSA's national contracts were valued at $6 billion. Of this amount, 80% was concentrated in the hands of 148 firms. In accordance with the concept of participatory democracy in Venezuela, PDVSA made it a priority to democratize its supplier base, meaning that it opened up to the many small cooperatives prevalent throughout the country. This way, the state oil company fostered an endogenous model of development that is in line with Venezuela's social principals. By December 2007, PDVSA's supplier network included more than 3,000 Social Production Enterprises."
But, really, is this about fundamentally transforming the basic underlying structures of the economy - its property relations, division of labor, its modes of decision making, norms of remuneration, methods of allocation - or is it only about ameliorating the most egregious injustices while retaining old structures?
The fact that in their words, PDVSA "developed an extensive program around the inclusion of EPS, having hundreds of people work on the identification of supplier opportunities, a standardized EPS registration system, and an educational program aiming at strengthening social production enterprises and preparing them to do business with PDVSA and other government entities" is undeniably a massive social experiment that is at least, unto itself, extremely progressive. But is it more?
In its "EPS School," the potential suppliers "pass through three phases of socio-economic and technical education, receiving up to 760 hours of preparation, depending on the sophistication of the service to be provided."
But is this education about the techniques of oil provision mostly, or does it have a social and structural component building consciousness headed toward new social relations? And if the latter is true, what are the features and what success and problems are encountered?
We are told that "once an EPS has a contract with PDVSA, it commits itself to contributing about 3% of profits to PDVSA's Social Fund, which currently holds millions of dollars being invested in community projects."
Okay, is that a small step, but a step nonetheless, on the road to eliminating profit as a social category - or is it just a minor tax on firms, with profits still overwhelmingly in command?
Venezuelans quote from graduates of the EPS programs to demonstrate their impact:
"Today a dream is coming true for us. In the past, doing business with PDVSA was the privilege of a [few] large enterprises. Small companies found closed doors at PDVSA. This changed with President Chávez...now it's the first time that small businesses are given the chance to participate as suppliers and partners of PDVSA, contributing in this way to the socio-economic development of our country....and we are feeling proud of this."
Is it just a program redressing gross imbalances? Or is it, beyond what the above person perceived - a program on the road to fundamentally transforming how production, consumption, and allocation are accomplished?
Programs Beyond Our View
Here is another bit of news from Venezuela I was sent. "Beyond the Social Production Enterprises, many other new socio-economic concepts have evolved in recent years, such as the "Nuclei of Endogenous Development" (NUDES)." How many people outside Venezuela had heard of that? I hadn't.
"In Venezuela NUDES are formed when communities discover potential projects, linked to a physical space in their surroundings (installations, factories, land) and organize in and around this space to carry these projects out. For example, various cooperatives might join to reactivate the area of an abandoned factory, reviving in this way a whole neighborhood and linking the inhabitants of this area to the activities of the NUDE, such as in the case of the Nucleus Fabricio Ojeda."
Again, you can imagine these efforts existing as a broad social democratic effort to improve the distribution of income, engender participation, etc., while maintaining the basic structure of society. Or you can imagine them to be part of a movement and process that will wind up in the old style socialist swamp. Or you can imagine them as a part of a rich and diverse process seeking something entirely new, true classlessness, real participation, even self management.
To judge which picture is real depends on knowing what is said, day to day, back and forth, by the people involved. Are the changes seen as tributaries of a growing tide - or are they seen as the whole point, themselves? Is the process coming ever more under the control of the populace, or is it centralizing outside the purview and influence of the populace?
We hear that, "a huge inventory plant in the neighborhood Catia in Caracas had been inactive for 12 years until the community decided to turn it into a NUDE. In February 2004, 330 persons formed 24 cooperatives for carrying out diverse construction projects in the nucleus and bringing the area back to life. Today, the Nucleus is a flourishing and active community center hosting more than 60 cooperatives in various areas and counting on important facilities and services such as health care clinics, Misión Che Guevara, sports camps and pharmacies, just to name a few. Today one can find more than 100 NUDES in Venezuela including more than 950 cooperatives active in various fields and especially in agriculture."
Again, it is very clearly a vast and exciting social and economic project with extremely progressive implications. That much is certain. But beyond that, we still don't know.
"Social Production Networks are formed when a Nucleus connects with other Nuclei, or with cooperatives, EPS's, Socialist Production Units or any form of alternative organization to carry out activities for the benefit of the community."
One person sees in this New Deal innovation and dynamism(probably the right view-Molly). Another person sees in it positive programs which, however, will sooner or later be compromised by elite rule. A third person - okay, I am this person - sees an incredibly rich pattern of innovation which seems to auger truly revolutionary aims. What I see seems to be building up, slowly, on a base that was not highly politicized, and in a hostile international context, the infrastructure of new relationships in a kind of parallel economy and polity, that will be ready, in time, to challenge for the future of Venezuela(As long as it is ready to challenge the "revolutionary myth" of the Chavez government-Molly.)
Another innovative feature of the Bolivarian project - or revolution - depending on your opinion - are the Socialist Production Units. These "are companies run by the government and marked by extensive community involvement. UPS's are found predominantly in the agricultural sector, and they promote national agricultural sovereignty. Part of the profits of these companies is invested into community projects, which are identified jointly with local community leaders. In the long term, UPS's will ideally be handed over directly to the community and run as community enterprises."
Profit? Maybe it is just a word, referring to something other than surpluses accruing to private owners. And what of the internal organization of the "socialist" structures. Are they internally like the 20th century firms of Russia, say, or do they offer something new, or headed toward something new, at least? And if there is originality, what shape does it take? Does it address the division of labor? The norms of remuneration? The modes of decision making? The allocation relations to other firms and consumers?
For example, we are told that the UPS Agrimiro Gabaldon which was "formerly a privately-run coffee plantation" was "forced to close down due to a drop in coffee prices," but "was recently inaugurated as a Socialist Production Unit." The report says that "under the new model, it extended its coffee cultivation area from 35 hectares to 96 hectares in the year 2005, and began selling its output mainly to public entities."
Okay, but did the plantation also alter its internal division of labor? Is it becoming democratic or even self managing? Is it becoming equitable in its approach to wages? Does it compete with other firms - or cooperate?
We hear that "thanks to the creation of these NUDES, Socialist Production Units, and Social Production Networks, an important number of neglected sites and companies have been revived, providing new jobs and linking local economies to local communities to carry out infrastructure and social projects."
In other words, the changes are occurring in firms and neighborhoods where things are virtually falling apart. Is this a wise strategic/tactical way to begin innovations, to make them seen, to develop support for them, and then to spread them? Or is it a kind of emergency method for dealing with horrendous problems, to be transcended later, by settling for more familiar and less innovative and participatory options when the worst problems are left behind?
We hear that "in order to strengthen regional economies and make them less vulnerable to financial crisis, the government of Venezuela has actively supported the rise of barter system and the creation of communal currencies throughout Venezuela. Currently, about 4,000 people practice bartering in 6 different regions in Venezuela (Yaracuy, Falcón, Sucre, Nueva Esparta, Margarita, Barinas, Trujillo). Each has its own local currency. Agricultural products are mainly available for barter trade, and the practice fosters local agriculture."
This reveals that indeed some changes are stopgap and instituted only to deal with problems that wouldn't be present in a transformed future. Other changes, however, may be part of that future. Which are which?
We hear that "Communal Banks were developed hand in hand with Communal Councils, or elected neighborhood-based councils. Communal Councils oversee local politics and execute development projects geared toward improving the socio-economic status of their communities. The concept of Communal Councils is grounded in the Law of Communal Councils, which was passed in April 2006."
Is this a method for getting out of poverty with support from the population - or even beyond that is it the beginning of structures of local grass roots self management that will eventually override the apparatus of mayors, governors, president, etc.?
Communal Banks "are the financial arm of the Communal Councils. They are constituted as cooperatives and administered democratically by five persons elected to the Citizens' Assembly, which is the highest decision-making body of the Communal Councils. Communal Banks facilitate the flow of resources toward community development projects."
Is this an example of doing some good things with old structures? Or is it a step away from old structures and toward overcoming market logic and behavior, having investments and production and consumption determined by cooperative negotiations among producers and consumers? We need more information to have a solid opinion.
A New Type of Economy and Polity?
We are told that "according to the Ministry of Popular Power for Participation and Social Development, there were 19,500 Communal Councils in Venezuela by March 2007, and the majority of them received funding from various ministries and state institutions."
Some would say local councils - venues for neighborhood folks to be politically involved - are little more than means for the government to poll a passive populace.
Others would say it is even worse, they are the infrastructure of state intervention and oversight of daily life, via snitches and the like(like the situation in Cuba-Molly).
Others would suggest, and I am in this last more optimistic camp, that these local structures are the beginning of an effort to build a completely new type of political system - for legislation, adjudication, and also, as per above, for implementation of shared programs.
In Venezuela you have the new, the incredibly new, the old, and the incredibly old - and you could replace the word new with progressive and the word old with reactionary and the sentiment would remain valid. It is not easy to navigate such complex phenomena, with limited consciousness present in the population, with media and finances arrayed against your endeavor, and trying to avoid open warfare and win change peacefully, and to simultaneously be forthright and clear at every stage about where things are headed. It is easy to empathize with the complexity and constraints and to understand why information is limited. Still, if possible, clarity would help win informed allies, supporters, advocates, and perhaps most important, would spur emulation elsewhere as well.
We are told that "by March 2008, the Ministry of Popular Power for the Communal Economy alone has approved more than $400 million to be handed over to 2,540 Communal Banks for productive projects. 1,533 of these banks have already received the whole amount assigned to them, and another 833 received part of the amount. With this money, 21.277 micro-credits were allotted to cooperatives and individual entrepreneurs. Most is used for projects in the service industry, or in commerce or agriculture."
Okay, this is obviously very good by many standards, but is it revolutionary?
"By the end of this year, FONDEMI (the Microfinance Development Fund) plans to finance 3,000 more Communal Banks, distributing yet another $420 million for productive projects."
This is clearly also very pogressive, but will it lead to a temporarily enlightened and certainly better developed Venezuela which is still, however, fundamentally capitalist, patriarchal, etc.? Or will it yield a Venezuela that is socialist in the old manner - the 20th century style? Or will it yield, as Chavez urges, something new, a classless and socially just society?
We are told that "thanks to the thousands of community projects carried out by Communal Councils, many important initiatives such as street pavings, sports fields, medical centers, and sewage and water systems have been financed and implemented."
Is this the New Deal Venezuelan style - and like the New Deal likely only to revert to familiar shapes once crises are averted and development proceeding? Or is it a process using reforms as means of arousing support, but headed toward old socialism? Or is it a process using diverse reforms as means to enlist participation, comprehension, and creativity, not passive support but active participation, toward a truly new type society?
21st Century Socialism?
Hugo Chavez tells us he wants to build twenty first century socialism. He often decries market relations. He regularly excoriates capitalism. His innovative approaches to popular political and economic decision making via councils and his prioritization of radicalized health, education, and other human services via innovative public missions, inspire great hope. But beyond Bolivarian claims and short term policies, where is the Bolivarian Revolution structurally going? What are its main institutional goals and timetables? What are the methods it is employing and will employ to attain its ends? These are questions I think a lot of people need answers to if they are to have solid attitudes about Venezuela.
By self description Hugo Chavez is aggressively anti-capitalist, but what does that mean?
Regarding economics, for example, does the Bolivarian revolution reject private ownership of the means of production? Verbally it says it does, and likewise in many innovative structures - but what about the bulk of the economy(No kidding-Molly)?
Does the Bolivarian revolution reject markets? Again, verbally, yes, I think it does. More, internationally, it seems to already often conduct trade and international aid by cooperative negotiation that ignores competitive market dictates(I think that this statement desreves serious proof beyond the Chavez desire to subsidize the Cuban dictatorship-Molly). This is wildly hopeful, not just for solidarity in Latin America, but as a challenge to the entire system of market exchange. But is there a path for transcending market relations writ large?
Does the Bolivarian revolution, as an aim, to be attained when able in light of growing consciousness and means, reject capitalistic remuneration such as people getting profit on property, or getting wages for bargaining power or even for output?
Similarly, does the Bolivarian revolution reject capitalism's typical division of labor in which about 20 percent of the workforce monopolizes all the empowering tasks while the other 80 percent does only rote, repetitive, and obedient labor?
Is the gigantic spurt of Bolivarian attention to innovative education - including not just literacy campaigns but also the Bolivarian University, etc. - meant to catch up to typical educational achievements of developed countries? Or is it meant to create a population able to control its own destiny rather than being ruled from above?
Given that Chavez is against particular capitalist institutions, does he have a feeling for what would replace them in a better economy? Do the other ministers of the government have visionary aims? Do the grassroots activists in the missions and coops? What about the broad public? How are aims to be generated? How are they to become widely advocated? How are they do won? Is there a path of innovation that can bring these features into play?
Put differently, if the Bolivarian Revolution is for twenty first century socialism, I wonder what that means? What is it about the old twentieth century socialism, for example, that Chavez and the Bolivarian revolution rejects? Is it central planning such as we saw in the Soviet Union? Is it markets such as we saw in Yugoslavia? Is it the typical 20th century socialist division of labor as we have seen it in Russia, Yugoslavia, and China, which is essentially the same as the division of labor we see in capitalism? Is it the norms of remuneration these socialisms have employed, which while they have jettisoned profit for property have retained payment for power and output? I hope and suspect it is all those things that are being dumped, but I don't know. And if it is, saying so would not only help people get excited about supporting the project, but would also inspire people to engage in similar movements elsewhere.
Similarly, in whatever ways Chavez disagrees with "twentieth century socialism," what does he propose to construct in Venezuela instead? And more, beyond the President, to what extent do other Venezuelans have similar aspirations? To what extent will other Venezuelans, especially at the grassroots, help define outcomes and attain them?
A New Participatory Society?
Regarding the economy, does the Bolivarian revolution believe workers and consumers should have a say in economic decisions in proportion as they are affected by them - which would be self management? Does it believe self managing workers and consumers councils, not boards of directors or managers, should be the seat of economic decision making power in each workplace? Does it believe there should be decentralized and participatory planning by these workers and consumers councils, including a cooperative negotiation of allocation rather than top down command allocation or competitive market allocation?Does it believe workers should be remunerated for how long and for how hard they work, and for enduring onerous conditions, but not for property, power, or even the value of output? If these features aren't part of the Bolivarian economic agenda, then what is preferred for Venezuela's future economy and why? When can such features appear in the state sector, in the coop sector, in the private sector? What are the hopes and plans?
And beyond the economy, Chavez has been very vocal not only about democracy in the polity, but about Venezuelans literally being able to have a say over their own social and political lives. Does the Bolivarian revolution reject, not only capitalist economics, but also the typical top down alienated approaches to government we see in the world today? Is the Bolivarian Revolution seeking something fundamentally different for politics with its grass roots assemblies, and if so, what are the values and features it prefers? Will these local assemblies be transmission lines for the will of rulers at the top? Or will these assemblies in time usurp mayors, governors, and the president himself, being the ultimate seat of political participation and influence?
Many international observers are worried there is a personality cult around Chavez. They site the lack of leaders who enjoy anywhere near as much popularity as he does and also slogans such as "Chavez is the people," "With Chavez anything, without Chavez nothing," or "Who is against Chavez is against the people." If these sentiments and the key role of Chavez is a necessary part of the early stages of transforming toward greater participation and self management, shouldn't their centrality and logic be better explained, and shouldn't it be very explicitly labelled an interim method, not a permanent goal?
Likewise, is there any exploration, as yet, of new approaches to law enforcement and adjudication? I would bet there are, but I have no idea. And wouldn't it be good for people to know, if we are to relate as more than voyeurs - and if we are to be able to dig in and try our own hand at related work? On the other side of the coin, human rights groups have criticized Venezuela's penal code saying that the 2004 reform of the penal code makes certain bad aspects of the penal code worse, such as its provision outlawing disrespect of government officials. Is such a clause really necessary? Why is it there? Why not get rid of it (Can i Suggest that it will be nothing but strengthened-Molly)?
And does the Bolivarian revolution have a revolutionary agenda around gender issues and around race issues? Is it ultimately seeking only vastly better gender and race policies but within old structures, a major and profound gain, to be sure - but not the ultimate revolution in culture and gender we all desire. Or are there fundamental changes it seeks in underlying familial and cultural institutions? Policies protecting minorities and advancing the rights [of] women are exemplary. But does the Bolivarian revolution have ideas about what additional needed structural changes might be, and if not, does it have a method for arriving at potential ideas and then evaluating them? Is there to be that kind of participation?
I would also like to know about Bolivarian media, not least because there is so much confusion, so much ruckus about it. Venezuelan mainstream media are currently narrowly owned and controlled and in no way reflect the desires of the Venezuelan population. Indeed, to whatever extent they are able to do so, Venezuelan mainstream media are hell bent on hindering positive change. I wonder about the Bolivarian view of how media ought to be organized in a better future? And I wonder what the plans are for media in Venezuela.
It has seemed, from far away, that the Bolivarian approach to education, health, coops, and the media as well, and other areas too, has been to construct a parallel set of structures to what now exists - for example, the Bolivarian University, health clinics, thousands of coops, and a Bolivarian state run TV station and I bet a newspaper soon, too - with the idea that these new approaches will in time replace the old ones. Is that the plan? And is there concern that the arena in which this competition between old and new occurs is the arena of the market, which of course does not favor solidarity, sociality, etc.? And does this plan, this approach to discovering, refining, and then spreading new models, given all the difficult constraints it tries to navigate, do a sufficient job of enlisting the leadership of the Venezuelan people in the definition of their new society? Regarding media, for example, rather than a face off between private and state run, what place is there for grassroots community based and otherwise self managed media beholden to the public and its workers, but not owners or the state?
International Relations and Where is Venezuela Going?
As we all know, the United States routinely uses its wealth to bludgeon foreign countries in ways overwhelmingly aimed at preserving and enlarging the power and wealth of U.S. elites not caring a whit about the suffering this imposes on others. Venezuela also seems to be utilizing its assets in the international arena via initiating diverse trading patterns, grants, etc. I wonder what guides these acts? Why isn't it explicit - thereby providing a norm against which we can all judge international exchanges?
When Venezuela exchanges oil and other products with other countries, is the Bolivarian revolution intent upon exchanging at market rates, or does it have a different attitude about what ought to determine exchange rates, and if so, as certainly seems to be the case(NO,NO NO it doesn't except in the case of Cuba and buying Cuban labour at "below market" rates- a good deal for Venezuela), what is it?
And finally, by way of understanding the timing of the Bolivarian Revolution, I wonder what Chavez and other Venezuelan activists expect to be the most important and exemplary accomplishments in Venezuela in the next five or ten years? And I wonder the extent to which Chavez's views and the views of other Bolivarian government officials, labor leaders, and grass roots activists compare with the views of the broad population? Is the broad public in synch with activist agendas or is it just watching - more or less as by-standing save in moments of crisis? Is the population ready to take initiative in advances or is it being pulled along without taking its own initiatives? And if the public is largely passive, what steps are in place to enliven public involvement and will they be pursued and pursued and pursued, rather than falling back on old models?
The above are just part of the kinds of concerns I have repeatedly heard from sensible and serious leftists about Venezuela. Clarifying may well involve strategic difficulties for the Bolivarian Revolution internally and on the world stage as well. But clarifying also promises a gigantic leap in interest from outside Venezuela and of active support at home, I suspect, as well.
The Brazilian path has been to moderate and accommodate and restrain not just communications, but also policies, in order to prevent massive external opposition. The price of that choice has been to dramatically reduce the worth of the whole undertaking. Hopefully Venezuelans will find a different way to ward off external assault. How about strength domestically and internationally, predicated on people knowing what is occurring and even being part of exploring option[s], choosing paths, and creating related and supportive commitments.
Labels: anarchist theory, Chavez, Cuba, leftism, Michael Albert, Mostly Water, Venezuela
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
INTERNATIONAL ANARCHIST MOVEMENT-CUBA:
ANOTHER INTERVIEW WITH THE MOVIMIENTO LIBERTARIO CUBANO (CUBAN LIBERTARIAN MOVEMENT):
The English language version of this interview has been circulating widely across the "anarcho-net" in the last two days. The Spanish original was published at the Spanish site A Las Barricadas on June 22. I find it impossible to acertain where the English translation was first published. The version below is reprinted from the A-Infos website.
Readers interested in the subject may consult two Wikipedia articles, one on 'Anarchism in Cuba' and another on 'The Cuban Libertarian Movement'. In addition two books available on the internet are invaluable resources. 'Cuban Anarchism:The History of a Movement' by Frank Ferndandez is available at the website of LibCom, and 'The Cuban Revolution:A Critcial Perspective' by Sam Dolgoff is available at the Anarchist Archives. Please google 'Cuba' on this blog for articles with further references.
.................................
ALB interviews the Cuban Libertarian Movement
During mid-June 2008 the Iberian counter-information collective A Las Barricadas www.alasbarricadas.org posed several questions to the www.mlc.acultura.org.ve, MLC - an affinity group of Cuban anarchism abroad. The complete text of this interview follows.
---- We’re interviewing the Cuban Libertarian Movement (Movimiento Libertario Cubano – MLC), an organization made up of anarchists in exile in different parts of the world. In these days of apparent change, of transition, as the European and North-American media would have it, it’s of interest to know first hand about what’s happening inside the island. The demise of Fidel Castro has opened up all sorts of speculation about the future of the communist regime due to the first measures the new chief, Raul Castro, has taken. Here’s the interview:
ALB – Hello compas. Let’s begin the interview with some notes on history for our readers. Could you briefly explain the history of the anarchist movement in Cuba?
MLC – Hello! Whoever wants to learn the history of our movement must begin with the work of our comrade Frank Fernandez, _Cuban Anarchism_, published in various languages. In general, the epic described is very similar to that of the anarchist movement in the rest of Latin America with the peculiarity that the late independence of Cuba finds our people involved in that struggle. The first Cuban unions likewise find many anarchists in their midst to be their main animators and such influence continues in certain production sectors until the 50’s, in open confrontation with the Batista dictatorship. Our participation in the struggles of the day came precisely from these syndicates, from the Cuban Libertarian Association (Asociación Libertaria Cubana) and in a smaller measure by comrades affiliated with the 26 of July Movement (Movimiento 26 de Julio). It is noteworthy that during the 50’s the Cuban anarchist movement was one of the most active among its peers in Latin America and took active part in different encounters such as the Anarchist Conference that took place in Montevideo in April 1957, which explicitly supported the struggle by the Cuban people against the Batista dictatorship.
ALB – Something that people in Europe and elsewhere don’t know: What was the role of the Cuban anarchists in the Cuban revolution?
MLC – As we have mentioned, we anarchists rose to the task within our possibilities and from our own revolutionary point of view in the struggle against the dictatorship. Indeed, we joined the general jubilation after the defeat of the Batista forces and the dissolution of its army. However, we also from the beginning maintained an early attitude of mistrust with towards the cult of personality, leadership, nationalist and militarist proclivities incarnated in Fidel Castro and his inner circle. This mistrust was soon justified and reinforced: for example, the direct intervention by Fidel Castro manipulating the X Congress of the Confederation of Cuban Workers (X Congreso de la Confederación de Trabajadores de Cuba) for the benefit of his group and violating the principles of the worker movement’s autonomy. >From then on, Cuban anarchists became more radical in their suspicions and adopted a clear stand against the incipient centralization of political power. All this is recorded in a manifest where we openly expressed our fears of the attempts to amass control by the Catholic Church as well as by the Communist Party whose most notorious cadres enjoyed political positions and sinecures during the Batista dictatorship. We’re aware that not everybody in the international anarchist movement shared our critical attitude and not a few kept to the expectative for many years regarding a process that continued monopolizing the meaning of a revolution by then devoid of any revolutionary spirit. Today, and for a long time now, we think it’s no longer debatable that the positions of those Cuban anarchists of 50 years ago proved completely on target. In short, it was nothing but the classic position from the 1st International that revolutions are not promoted, encouraged or radicalized by “revolutionary” governments but that within them you find the bureaucratic and authoritarian germ that ends up by suffocating and annihilating the revolution and imposing itself as the new dominant class in the new State.
ALB – Could you talk about the exile? Was there understanding, support, or on the contrary alienation?
MLC – We can’t talk in the past tense yet. We are still many Cuban anarchists in exile in many parts of the planet. Our exile is as hard as any other exile in terms of separation and alienation with the aggravation that the first comrades who got out of Cuba didn’t have any other choice but to establish themselves in such a hostile milieu as the United States; something not habitually understood but such has been the inexorable destiny to be followed, at least in principle, by Cuban refugees of all times. Most painful was to come face to face with the lack of under
standing and alienation we got from certain anarchist groups of Europe and Latin America that would have liked to see us integrated in a transformation that was initially uncritically favored. Not all anarchist groups, of course, reacted the same way and we also received countless displays of solidarity that grew with the years as the Cuban political regime unveiled its true face. Today, those debates from the 60’s have been totally overcome and there isn’t one sane anarchist that still can think about a libertarian evolution coming from a political regime based on absolute control of its subjects and the super-exploitation of the workers; without autonomous organizations independent of the state acting as bulk wards in the struggle against such “super-exploitation” by the state and capital; remember that there are a multitude of capitalist enterprises based in the Spanish State, Canada, Mexico, Japan, France, Italy, etc.
standing and alienation we got from certain anarchist groups of Europe and Latin America that would have liked to see us integrated in a transformation that was initially uncritically favored. Not all anarchist groups, of course, reacted the same way and we also received countless displays of solidarity that grew with the years as the Cuban political regime unveiled its true face. Today, those debates from the 60’s have been totally overcome and there isn’t one sane anarchist that still can think about a libertarian evolution coming from a political regime based on absolute control of its subjects and the super-exploitation of the workers; without autonomous organizations independent of the state acting as bulk wards in the struggle against such “super-exploitation” by the state and capital; remember that there are a multitude of capitalist enterprises based in the Spanish State, Canada, Mexico, Japan, France, Italy, etc.ALB – Let’s talk about the present; Fidel has retired leaving in his place his brother. What has changed in Cuba?
MLC – In our last public declaration – “Something smells different in Cuba”, May 2008 – we tried to clarify that “the changes” happening in Cuba are merely cosmetic and only attempt to generate a “liberalizing” image that doesn’t change the basic functioning of the regime and the institutional power structure: State capitalism, privileges for the haute state bureaucracy and particularly for the armed forces, monopolization by the only party of all the mechanisms of self-expression and decision-making, absolute control over the population, etc. Nevertheless, what is changing is the general attitude of the people: today you can see that the people are losing their fear of repression and have begun to conquer space; the hardships of everyday life can no longer remain hidden and everybody knows it; there are the beginnings of protest more or less organized, etc. All this points the way to possible courses of action: our expectations lay on them and we harbor no illusions with respect to a summit of power that is only trying to win more time.
ALB – In Europe there are reports about the lines that Cubans have to make to buy cell phones or to get internet (among other things), are we going into a spiral of consumerism?
MLC – No, consumerism is not possible in Cuba given that the main worry is to solve the most elemental and immediate things: food, housing, transportation etc. Even more: worker’s salaries do not even cover these needs and they must recur to the rationing book with all its scarcities. What we have in Cuba is a surplus of foreign currency in possession of those who get remittances from their families abroad: this surplus allows for such “luxuries” as computers and cell phones whose purchase has only recently been permitted. The economic debacle the regime is in is of such proportions that at this moment it is quite possible that the remittances of foreign currency surpass the sum of all of the country’s salaries, without exaggeration. This also explains the fact that that approximately 20% of the population of Havana has no interest in getting jobs. Why would somebody who receives some economic help from abroad - always more than the US$20 monthly mean salary - want to work? The regime has no answers to this type of thing and continues in vain the appeals to sacrifice and labor discipline in exchange for nothing, while the ruling class have access to the best goods and services available. Paradoxically there is much unemployment among the social classes historically dispossessed that survive against the current, doing whatever it takes, street peddling, prostitution and expropriation. This – together with a strong racism – institutional and cultural – explains why Cuban jails are full of young Afro-Cubans.
ALB – Is there hope of bigger changes among the people? Are any opposition political groups mobilizing?
MLC – We think that people have lost all hopes and faced with the total prohibition of any alternative form of social and political action they continue to explore the ways to emigrate as the only recourse at hand to escape a situation of open anguish. The “visible” opposition, meanwhile, is nothing but a potpourri without a coherent project, without anything in common but a primitive and visceral opposition to Castro. On the other hand, it is necessary to distinguish the ideological-political profiles of that opposition. It is well known that within this opposition there are sectors ranging from those strongly linked to Yankee diplomacy to those who support a generally self-managed outcome. Obviously, between these two factions there can be no alliance possible. On this point, we anarchists have no choice but to put our hopes in the strengthening of the second option and its gaining larger spaces among the people itself.
ALB – How do you see Hugo Chavez’s influence in the island? He broke the blockade years ago by investing millions in Cuba. Have those investments translated into political influence?
MLC – First we must make clear that the so-called “blockade” is nothing like a commercial closing down of Cuba but a mix of positions adopted by the United States under the name of “embargo” reinforced during Republican administrations –with legislation like Helms-Burton and Torricelli’s – that stupidly handicap commercial exchanges but do not stop them: lately the United States has had commerce with Cuba to the tune of US$500 million per year. Cuba’s great problem in this area is its almost non-existent ability to pay, which has made it a universal debtor, even with Latin American countries, exporting doctors, teachers, sports coaches and security advisors. This is the type of relationship Cuba has formed with Chavez’s Venezuela. It is precisely this export of doctors and teachers what explains the undeniable decay in health and education. And also the military advisors that, no doubt, are the source of proposals to start up a unique intelligence and counter-intelligence “agency” that would control and coordinate all repressive enterprises, with a network of paid informants and volunteers throughout the country to watch and control all civic activities, in the image of the feared Cuban G2, that is, Castro’s state security. The Venezuelan people have nicknamed this bad copy “Sapeo Law” - a reference to informants – and even Chavez was recently forced to abolish it. Returning to the question we also have to point out that Cuba has generated a strong dependency on Venezuela, particularly with all things related to obtaining oil. But that dependency has also extended to China’s financing, Cuba’s other large international backer. In terms of political influence we think the Cuban rulers manage it in terms of convenience and at this moment their possibilities of adaptation lean more towards a “Chinese model” than a “Venezuelan model”. However, it is obvious that Cuba will have to follow kicking and screaming Chavez’s initiatives in a Latin American context.
ALB – What about the influence of leftist populist ideas from Latin America?
MLC – The surge of populist ideas certainly gives the Cuban political regime some breathing room, but also alienates it from the most lucid and radical revolutionary and autonomous sectors since these harbor no illusions with respect to governments such as those of Chavez, Morales, Correa or Ortega and certainly Cuban diplomacy will be set against popular mobilizations in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador or Nicaragua. On the other hand, one needs to place the current populist cycle in Latin America as only an attempt to develop a regional capitalism. It is a fragile cycle still subject to multiple oscillations that don’t afford the Cuban government any guarantees long term. This is one of the reasons why we understand that this government is running against the clock and playing for time. Meanwhile, the populist governments act as an ideological-political rearguard but the most pressing problem for the Cuban government isn’t that but the fact that it can’t even provide decent food for the people and it has to solve this problem before such a regional Latin American capitalist block is formed with a minimum of solvency.
ALB – For several years now news from the MLC appear in the international libertarian press. What is your relationship with other anarchists throughout the world?
MLC – The MLC aspires to better relations with the international anarchist movement. For a good period of time we have overcome diverse resistances and we have strengthened many of our alliances. Many groups have established firm priorities in terms of solidarity with Cuban anarchists such as Group of Support to Independent Libertarians and Syndicalists in Cuba (GALSIC) and Venezuela’s El Libertario, www.nodo50.org/ellibertario . Frank Fernandez’s historical work about our movement has been accepted in the Spanish State by the Anselmo Lorenzo Foundation (Fundación Anselmo Lorenzo), in Italy by Zero in Conduct (Zero in Condotta), in the United States by See Sharp Press and so on. Also, we have worked to make clear our solidarity with anarchist groups everywhere and from the most contemporary currents. This has been possible thanks to the MLC’s configuration which doesn’t exactly follow the pattern of a proper organization but rather has been developing as a coordinating network for Cuban anarchists wherever they may be, and this covers a wid
e gamut of positions, from anarcho-syndicalism, specifism, neo-platformism, primitivism, insurrectionalism, eco-anarchism and even anarcho-punk; no matter how contradictory or incompatible they might be since the axis or principal motif of this coordination is the solidarity with anarchist comrades, autonomous and independent syndicalists and counter-cultural collectives with the clear objective of fostering a widespread anti-authoritarian movement that will allow the continuity of anarchist ideals so brusquely pruned –but not severed – by the bourgeois dictatorship of the Castro brothers.Probably there are comrades who still have certain reservations as there are some who still perceive the Cuban State and its governing elite as a revolutionary socialist force. But these cases today are the exception and tend to become merely anecdotic as time goes by. Sooner or later, the MLC is an integral part of the anarchist international movement at the level of any other and soon nobody will doubt it.
e gamut of positions, from anarcho-syndicalism, specifism, neo-platformism, primitivism, insurrectionalism, eco-anarchism and even anarcho-punk; no matter how contradictory or incompatible they might be since the axis or principal motif of this coordination is the solidarity with anarchist comrades, autonomous and independent syndicalists and counter-cultural collectives with the clear objective of fostering a widespread anti-authoritarian movement that will allow the continuity of anarchist ideals so brusquely pruned –but not severed – by the bourgeois dictatorship of the Castro brothers.Probably there are comrades who still have certain reservations as there are some who still perceive the Cuban State and its governing elite as a revolutionary socialist force. But these cases today are the exception and tend to become merely anecdotic as time goes by. Sooner or later, the MLC is an integral part of the anarchist international movement at the level of any other and soon nobody will doubt it.ALB – What do you expect will happen in the island in a few years?
MLC – We have spoken about it in previous interviews. Basically we trust in people’s capacity for autonomous organization and there we put our expectations. It’s not a matter of waiting for the ripe fruit to fall but rather to join, within our possibilities, those formative processes of revolutionary anti-authoritarian and self-managed currents inside Cuba. We believe the situation has already produced more than enough reasons for this to happen but we also know that the political regime and the elite in power have been able to act to contain such manifestations to their minimal expression. We are not ignorant of the difficulties faced by militant work in that direction and we also know too well the efficiency demonstrated by the State’s security organisms –the only efficient aspect of the regime – but we will not stop our efforts because that is our only reason for being.
ALB – Lastly, what is the MLC? What kind of people makes it up?
MLC - We have already commented on this. The MLC is a network of Cuban anarchists. As anarchists we are not different from other anarchists who face the domination relationships and the webs of power in which they exist except for the fact – certainly weird – that in our case we face a hierarchical society and a ruling class that still finds justification in the name of “revolution” and “socialism”. The MLC is made up of people who live of their work and who in our everyday lives conduct ourselves by the incorruptible desire to build relationships among free and equal men and women in solidarity. >From a generational point of view, the nucleus that tries to maintain alive the anarchist ethos today is no longer composed in its majority –due to obvious biological reasons – by the first group of exiles from the 60’s that founded the MLC in the city of New York, but rather by those of us who had to leave the island in the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s.
ALB – Are there anarchists inside Cuba? How about libertarian groups in exile outside the MLC?
MLC – We know of no other anarchist groups in exile outside the MLC, but it wouldn’t bother us at all if there were, in this case we would try to find them quickly and explore the possibilities of joint actions. In the 80’s two editorial collectives co-existed, one of them around the journal Guangara Libertaria and the other with A Mayor and both co-existed as a coordinating network under the same acronym. As to the existence of anarchists inside Cuba, we can emphatically confirm that they do exist and have been doing so clandestinely and underground for the last half century. The big problem in this case is that those who remained in Cuba have been systematically suppressed each time they dared demonstrate publicly as happened with the agricultural syndicalists of the Zapata Group towards the end of the 70’s and beginning of the 80’s. This is one of the reasons why the anarchists inside have taken great care not to be identified as such and have managed to survive in the shadows. Besides, during the last few years there has been a movement by anti-establishment counter-culture youths that constitutes the ferment for the emergence of a spontaneous kind of anarchism that doesn’t yet have possibilities in the literal sense of the word or in the deeper sense of continued collective praxis. The truth is that surely there are in Cuba many more anarchists than we can even imagine: the spontaneous forms of rebellion that happen are the best breeding grounds for it. One of the immediate challenges we have is to achieve fluidity in these relationships with the “inside”, something that the “prohibitions” continue to present obstacles to.
ALB – What is your relationship with other opposition groups?
MLC – The MLC doesn’t keep formal or stable relations with any group of the so-called opposition; among other things because many of them would be our mortal enemies, if we were all active inside Cuba. It is imperative to be clear on this. The image presented by the most vociferous Cuban exiles is nothing but an attempt to re-instate capitalism – that is, to continue the task begun by the government but incorporating in it the private Cuban capital accumulation from abroad – and holding democratic elections under a parliamentary and party system. But we are anarchists and if such a project would take hold in Cuba we would also be against it. On the other hand, it is clear that there is a fraction of the Cuban exile that, without self-describing as strictly anarchist, agrees with us in vague terms defending a liberalizing and self-managed line, many times even among former socialists or members of the PCC (Cuban Communist Party), today self-described as Trotskyites, Luxemburgists etc. It is possible there wouldn’t be too many problems talking with them, but it is a diffuse and disorganized segment of the exile. Remember also that the exile, in its totality doesn’t correspond, in any way, to the image the Castro propaganda shows which only recognizes the so-called “Miami Mafia” which includes ex-batistians, anexionists, neo-liberals, narco-traffickers and ultranationalists. No! The Cuban exile is composed of a majority of working class people who survive out of the sweat of their brow. We’re talking about a noble people genuinely inspired by the establishment of a set of basic freedoms and respect for human rights inside the island: people who do not have a well defined political project but who want to simply be able to write, travel, organize freely, sing, paint, or do whatever they want without needing the state’s permission. Or simply people who want to go back, to work without exploiting anybody and live decently. With this type of people –the great majority of those in exile – we maintain fraternal relations in whatever part of the world it is our fate to live. It is not about a shared revolutionary program but about the elementary respect that honest, simple working people in Cuba or anywhere else deserve.
[Translation: Luis Jose Prat. Original in Spanish:
Labels: A Las Barricadas, anarchism, Cuba, Cuban Libertarian Movement, international anarchist movement, Marxism
