KitNotes

I got this from one of the (too) many mailing lists that I am subscribed to:

The Venezuelan National Guard has repressed a group of striking workers belonging to the UNT in Carabobo state, according to reports on the Aporrea website.

Workers at Alfarería Internacional (International Pottery) had their three-week-old strike broken up on 10 August by the National Guard. Two days before, seven members of the union’s executive were arrested.

Workers are members of the Unión de Trabajadores Procesadores de la Arcilla, Similares y Conexos del Estado Carabobo (Utpasca), part of the National Union of Workers (UNT), the new independent union federation in Venezuela.

Although information is sketchy, it is at least clear that the Venezuelan military has used force to back employers against unionised and militant workers. The UNT in Carabobo is calling for solidarity.

Perhaps Chávez should heed the warning of his hero Simón Bolívar – damned is the soldier that uses force against the people.

This has caused quite a stir on the e-group of the Socialist Youth Network (who’s new message board is finally up and running here) between the Alliance for Workers Liberty supporters (to who’s camp I belong on this question, without being an actual member) and Old Labourites/Socialist Appeal.

Certainly there has been a lot of support for Chavez who, in his own way, constitutes an alternative to US Imperialism in Latin America. And there are features of his “Boliviarian Revolution” which I believe should be defended - the literacy programmes, social housing programmes, healthcare, etc.

But to defend these gains is no different to defend the gains of the 1945 Labour Government (which, uncannily, also introduced similar benefits for workers). There are some who like to believe that the Chavez movement constitutes a socialist revolution, and given the defeat of the Stalinist states in Russia and Eastern Europe and the massive onslaught of US and UK imperialism (mostly US), then the proposition is an attractive one.

But people shouldn’t let their optimism blind them. The process in Venezuela under Chavez is not a socialist revolution - the nature of Chavez’s state is what Marxists call ‘left-bonapartist’. It replaces the independent role of the working class with a benevolent state.

Certainly, there is very little worker’s organisation that is independent of both Chavez and the capitalists (who predict rich pickings, according to The Times). Indeed, the above report suggests that workers who are organising for their class interests are being attacked by this ‘progressive state’.

Certainly the Chavistas on the SYN list are being quiet on actually giving an answer. But this one is open to people who support Chavez (critically or otherwise). When workers are fighting for their class interests, who do you back: the Chavistas or the workers?