statement from the UNT on transportation strike
[interesting, because here is where autonomy/politics coincide: what is the criteria, here? that they be workers, or that their politics be progressive?] We reject worker’s and business organizations that disguise themselves as workers, that are part of a plan designed in Washington and that try to stop transportation when the working families are going to enjoy their Carnival vacations.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
the real fracture in venezuela's labor movement is ideological:
Should there be a leadership election now or should that wait until after the Presidential election in order to devote all energy to that? While that is an accurate portrayal of the dispute at the II Congress there was much more to it than that. Under the surface a more dangerous quarrel is simmering away that could have consequences for the government and its revolutionary credentials. What is up for grabs is the meaning of XXI century Socialism and the UNT’s role within it.
(...) But regarding the co-operative factories in particular, there are disagreements within the MVR (the governing party), the state bureaucracy, and within the UNT. There is a divergence of views over the form they should take, the extent of workers control and how predominant they should be across different sectors of the economy. This was all at play at the Congress.
(...) It is divided into five currents: The Class Unity Revolutionary and Autonomous Current (C-CURA) led by Orlando Chirino, the Bolivarian Workers Force (FBT), led by Osvaldo Vera, the Autonomous Union, the faction of Franklin Rondón, and the collective led by Marcela Máspero.
(...) And like most organizations it is a broad ideological church, spanning social democracy at the right of the political spectrum to Marxism-Leninism on the left. It was, as Orlando Chirino puts it, “forged during the heat of struggle”: the leaders of different unions agreed a national coordinating committee, hence the entire organization was formed from the top down with little discussion or debate at the grassroots level. While this may have been understandable at the time, three years on the UNT still lacks direction, purpose and legitimacy. The II Congress was supposed to put an end to these deficiencies.
(...) But the congress was a disaster if not a total farce. The entire first day of a three day conference was taken up with accreditation and a lot of the accommodation for those traveling from outside Caracas was actually located outside of Caracas, nowhere near the Congress. All of this already had delegates’ tempers raised, so when the key issue of elections came to be debated, violence broke out and all but C-CURA left the hall to reconvene in another location and the Congress was split in two.
(...) Without taking sides on the issue, it is important to note that C-CURA is the only current that wants the elections this year but it is actually bigger than the other four combined. They could have been expected to win the vote in the Congress for elections if it hadn’t been disrupted.
(...) The Congress mainly highlighted and accentuated the divisions and served as a stage where the ‘disorganized’ working-class was on show, to the inevitable delight of those opposed to its active involvement in the revolutionary process.
(...) One thing all five currents do agree on is that they want Hugo Chávez to win the December presidential elections and they support the campaign for 10 million votes. But even there tensions arise. For the four minority currents the support for the government must be uncritical, while Chirino’s current wants an autonomous confederation that is first and foremost a worker’s movement. If the government acts against the interests of workers, they want the right to criticize it.
(...) Chirino is a Marxist. For him and his current Chávez has played a key role in encouraging and radicalizing workers through his rhetoric and his support for factory occupations and co-management, and basically for bringing the word socialism into the public discourse. But for C-CURA co-management is just a transitional phase towards complete workers control of industry, taking Venezuela towards XXI Century Socialism. It is a period of “apprenticeship,” where workers learn new skills and grow in confidence. They have criticized the fact that the government has allowed workers to profit from co-managed factories such as INVEVAL. They think society as a whole should profit and argue that government policy is turning workers into capitalists. They also want workers to control the oil industry, which the state has emphatically refused to consider, designating it a “strategic” industry. For this reason Chirino and his associates are forming their own revolutionary party outside of the MVR.
(...) Conversely, the other four currents are all closely linked to the government and the state. Marsela Máspero is close to the Ministry of Work, while Osvaldo Vera of the FBT is actually a deputy in the National Assembly for the ruling MVR. The Autonomous Union is linked to Patria Para Todos (PPT), which is in coalition with the MVR. And they have supported the right of workers to “own” their co-operatives. They have opposed Chirino’s plan to form a new party. While they insist that their motivation is no more than to avoid dividing the pro-Chávez coalition, could their opposition to elections that they might lose have something to do with a loss of control of the UNT by MVR, especially given the C-CURA’s radical tendencies?
(...) Actually, although the state likes to show off INVEPAL and INVEVAL (companies where the state owns 51% and the workers 49% and are jointly managed), most of the co-managed factories are actually businesses that have run into financial difficulty and the state provides funds to the companies under the guarantee that the workers are kept on and that they are given a limited role in management. It is difficult to attach the label socialism to these enterprises.
(...) The UNT seems to be failing the Bolivarian Revolution and the workers. The right and left of the organization both bear responsibility for this.
(...) It is important, too, that it remains autonomous from the government. For an autonomous internationalist union confederation a class-based identity should be developed. One need only look at the AFL-CIO in the US to see what nationally focused, top-down trade unions can lead to: a coalition with the state and business against workers from other countries. That doesn’t always mean opposing the government, but keeping a safe distance so as to remain independent. Union leaders such as Osvaldo Vera, who are also members of the government, will find this difficult.
Should there be a leadership election now or should that wait until after the Presidential election in order to devote all energy to that? While that is an accurate portrayal of the dispute at the II Congress there was much more to it than that. Under the surface a more dangerous quarrel is simmering away that could have consequences for the government and its revolutionary credentials. What is up for grabs is the meaning of XXI century Socialism and the UNT’s role within it.
(...) But regarding the co-operative factories in particular, there are disagreements within the MVR (the governing party), the state bureaucracy, and within the UNT. There is a divergence of views over the form they should take, the extent of workers control and how predominant they should be across different sectors of the economy. This was all at play at the Congress.
(...) It is divided into five currents: The Class Unity Revolutionary and Autonomous Current (C-CURA) led by Orlando Chirino, the Bolivarian Workers Force (FBT), led by Osvaldo Vera, the Autonomous Union, the faction of Franklin Rondón, and the collective led by Marcela Máspero.
(...) And like most organizations it is a broad ideological church, spanning social democracy at the right of the political spectrum to Marxism-Leninism on the left. It was, as Orlando Chirino puts it, “forged during the heat of struggle”: the leaders of different unions agreed a national coordinating committee, hence the entire organization was formed from the top down with little discussion or debate at the grassroots level. While this may have been understandable at the time, three years on the UNT still lacks direction, purpose and legitimacy. The II Congress was supposed to put an end to these deficiencies.
(...) But the congress was a disaster if not a total farce. The entire first day of a three day conference was taken up with accreditation and a lot of the accommodation for those traveling from outside Caracas was actually located outside of Caracas, nowhere near the Congress. All of this already had delegates’ tempers raised, so when the key issue of elections came to be debated, violence broke out and all but C-CURA left the hall to reconvene in another location and the Congress was split in two.
(...) Without taking sides on the issue, it is important to note that C-CURA is the only current that wants the elections this year but it is actually bigger than the other four combined. They could have been expected to win the vote in the Congress for elections if it hadn’t been disrupted.
(...) The Congress mainly highlighted and accentuated the divisions and served as a stage where the ‘disorganized’ working-class was on show, to the inevitable delight of those opposed to its active involvement in the revolutionary process.
(...) One thing all five currents do agree on is that they want Hugo Chávez to win the December presidential elections and they support the campaign for 10 million votes. But even there tensions arise. For the four minority currents the support for the government must be uncritical, while Chirino’s current wants an autonomous confederation that is first and foremost a worker’s movement. If the government acts against the interests of workers, they want the right to criticize it.
(...) Chirino is a Marxist. For him and his current Chávez has played a key role in encouraging and radicalizing workers through his rhetoric and his support for factory occupations and co-management, and basically for bringing the word socialism into the public discourse. But for C-CURA co-management is just a transitional phase towards complete workers control of industry, taking Venezuela towards XXI Century Socialism. It is a period of “apprenticeship,” where workers learn new skills and grow in confidence. They have criticized the fact that the government has allowed workers to profit from co-managed factories such as INVEVAL. They think society as a whole should profit and argue that government policy is turning workers into capitalists. They also want workers to control the oil industry, which the state has emphatically refused to consider, designating it a “strategic” industry. For this reason Chirino and his associates are forming their own revolutionary party outside of the MVR.
(...) Conversely, the other four currents are all closely linked to the government and the state. Marsela Máspero is close to the Ministry of Work, while Osvaldo Vera of the FBT is actually a deputy in the National Assembly for the ruling MVR. The Autonomous Union is linked to Patria Para Todos (PPT), which is in coalition with the MVR. And they have supported the right of workers to “own” their co-operatives. They have opposed Chirino’s plan to form a new party. While they insist that their motivation is no more than to avoid dividing the pro-Chávez coalition, could their opposition to elections that they might lose have something to do with a loss of control of the UNT by MVR, especially given the C-CURA’s radical tendencies?
(...) Actually, although the state likes to show off INVEPAL and INVEVAL (companies where the state owns 51% and the workers 49% and are jointly managed), most of the co-managed factories are actually businesses that have run into financial difficulty and the state provides funds to the companies under the guarantee that the workers are kept on and that they are given a limited role in management. It is difficult to attach the label socialism to these enterprises.
(...) The UNT seems to be failing the Bolivarian Revolution and the workers. The right and left of the organization both bear responsibility for this.
(...) It is important, too, that it remains autonomous from the government. For an autonomous internationalist union confederation a class-based identity should be developed. One need only look at the AFL-CIO in the US to see what nationally focused, top-down trade unions can lead to: a coalition with the state and business against workers from other countries. That doesn’t always mean opposing the government, but keeping a safe distance so as to remain independent. Union leaders such as Osvaldo Vera, who are also members of the government, will find this difficult.
trade unions and socialism in venezuela (interview with orlando chirino, april 2007):
(...) [on chavez' announcement of the PSUV] What is most worrying is that the president ended up by doing exactly what he criticized. He criticized the political cannibalism that characterizes the organizations of the Left, but then he went on to say that anyone who does not share his views is a counterrevolutionary. I think this is a serious mistake, because far from encouraging debate it closes it down and encourages the sectarianism that the president has said he is anxious to fight.
(...) The president says, for example, that the reformists are a danger—and I agree. And yet it is my view that the program the president is putting forward rests on a reformist conception, and that there is no perspective for a break with the logic of capital. Let me explain. After the great neoliberal offensive of the 1990s, we are seeing again multimillion-dollar investments by international capital in strategic sectors of the economy such as oil, mining, coal, construction, and infrastructural projects. International consortia from China, Russia, and Iran are exploiting our workers more than ever. I don’t believe that some multinationals are better than others. They are all essentially concerned with monopolizing production and trade, exploiting workers, pillaging the natural resources of nations and intervening politically in the economic decision-making processes of those countries. This strikes at the heart of the kind of economic model we are building.
(...) The president represents investment by the multinationals as a step forward. I see it as mortgaging the revolution.
(...) [this is relevant - because it has now been nationalized - what does that tell us?] Equally worrying is the president’s announcement that Sidor [a major steel company] will not be nationalized because it is being run by “good capitalists.” In fact, this company was privatized under the Fourth Republic and is owned by a multinational consortium headed by Techint of Argentina.
(...) [W]e wonder when we began to speak of “good” and “bad” capitalists?’
(...) The president is currently making a lot of public references to China. We would ask him not to do that, because capitalism was restored in China a number of years ago, and today it is the country where the working class is most exploited. They are modern-day slaves, led by a rotten party that calls itself communist, but is in fact completely subject to the multinationals. To cap it all, the Chinese have just introduced into the constitution the right to private property. China is hardly a good example.
(...) [tension between state- and public- in state/public-ownership of means of production] Another important issue is the role of social classes in this revolution. You don’t have to refer to Marx, Engels, Lenin, or Trotsky to know that the only way to overturn capitalism, a system in which a minority imposes its will on the majority, is that the working class and the people—we who are the majority and the producers—take the lead in expropriating the enterprises and place them under our control. In that sense, what we mean by socialism is very simply stated. Yet that is becoming more and more difficult in Venezuela. We workers are not in that position, even in the key sectors of the economy, to contemplate even joint management, let alone workers control. The government will not consider the possibility of co-management in strategic sectors.
(...) This suggests that the government’s program does not include expropriation, and nor will the PSUV’s. But if this doesn’t happen, we will not be moving toward socialism, but only toward some kind of state capitalism with a developmentalist perspective. This leaves private property untouched, and means that capitalist exploitation and the accumulation of profit by a very few will continue.
(...) [on trade union autonomy]THIS IS a really important issue. The president can’t change history and argue that those of us who are fighting for the independence of the trade-union movement have somehow been “poisoned” by the experience of the Fourth Republic. On the contrary, trade union autonomy is the key antidote to bureaucratization; that’s why the revolution was saved in 2002 and 2003, and as long as it continues it will be the key safeguard of the revolution.
(...) [and this doesn't mean their de-politicization - it means their unwillingness to submit to power] For forty years the Venezuelan trade-union movement lived through its worst period, because workers were puppets in the games played by the old parties (Copei and AD) and the bosses’ organizations. Venezuelans still remember how AD (Democratic Action) decided the fate of workers, bought and sold contracts, and worked with the government to control the unions and the CTV. We should remember that the bosses’ strike of 2002–03 was led by CTV and Fedecámaras (the bosses’ organization) working hand in hand. The raison d’être of the new UNT union is exactly the opposite: to fight for trade union autonomy, and organize the workers to fight against any attempt to submit them to political control or give in to compromises.
(...) [eschewing universal representation, even as has claimed status of universal subject]The president has to understand that because of what we call the class instinct, and the levels of class and revolutionary consciousness, as well as because of their relationship with the bosses, the behavior of workers is different from that of peasants, communities, or students.
(...) The worst thing about the president’s comments, however, is the suggestion that by fighting for the independence of the working-class movement we are playing a counterrevolutionary role. That is not true. With other comrades we have built a national trade-union current that as well as fighting against bureaucracy and for socialism, is most committed to a fierce defense of trade-union autonomy. The second congress of the UNT was proof of what I am arguing. What happened there was not just about five different factions or currents fighting or some leaders squabbling with others because we have personal disagreements, and President Chávez is wrong to describe it that way. In fact, for the last two years “the mother of all battles” has been under way between two conceptions—on the one hand those who want to tie the trade unions to the government, and on the other, those of us who are fighting for the sovereignty and independence of the trade-union movement.
(...) As PST-La Chispa (Workers’ Socialist Party) we are proud to have been the first political organization to support Hugo Chávez’s presidential candidacy. He will remember the first meetings we organized in the La Quizanda district of Valencia and with the textile workers of Aragua. So our history is unimpeachable.
(...) We are at the forefront of the struggle against the CTV, we supported the creation of the FBT (Bolivarian Workers’ Front), and we are enthusiastically behind the UNT. We joined the best activists in resisting the coup of April 11, 2002, and we were centrally involved in the recovery of the oil industry during the bosses’ lockout of 2002–03. Our record is an extremely honorable one.
(...) THE PRESIDENT has tried to use Rosa Luxemburg’s writings to support his arguments against trade-union independence—but we have to see her positions in the particular political and historical context in which she put them forward. When she discussed the question of trade-union autonomy she was referring to the German Social Democratic Party and arguing against syndicalist and bureaucratic tendencies within the unions. As a Trotskyist I have to recognize that Trotsky was wrong when he argued that the trade unions in Russia should not be autonomous shortly after the Bolshevik victory. Luckily, Lenin participated in the debate and he argued for autonomy. Trotsky’s arguments had real force, given that this was the time of the war economy, when there was hunger, civil war, physical assaults against working-class and trade-union leaders, and a confrontation with the holy alliance of the imperialist counterrevolution. Yet even so he was wrong while Lenin was right.
(...) And there is another issue related to autonomy. The FBT and the Labor Ministry allege that the UNT is not fulfilling its historic role and should therefore disappear. At the same time they are talking about setting up parallel structures and putting forward a series of proposals that will decimate the trade-union movement. It is crucial that these proposals are seriously and carefully discussed by the working class.
(...) It is because we are independent that day in and day out we are able to fearlessly express our views on the errors—sometimes the appalling errors—that the government is committing. Public-sector workers cannot be left waiting for twenty-seven months for their contract to be negotiated. And it seems that the oil workers will face a similar fate. The key question is whether it is right to struggle for the independence of the trade union, and whether our exposure of these issues makes us counterrevolutionaries.
(...) Of course this is not just about trade-union autonomy. It is also about the relationship between the PSUV and the government. Will all PSUV members be obliged to support the decisions of the government and its bureaucrats? Will the new party be more than just an appendage of the government?
(...) For me this is the key question. How is the PSUV being built? I want to express my solidarity with thousands of my compatriots who went to Caracas to take part in the event and who were not only excluded, but mistreated and beaten in the bargain. On television we saw governors, mayors, and deputies who do not have mass support occupying the first rows. There were bosses and bureaucrats present who have defended the bosses, and a number of people who have been accused of corruption and the defense of policies that did not reflect the interests of the people. That is why there is so much discontent—because people know that this process has begun in a very questionable way.
(...) [on the PSUV] WE HAVE to recognize that the people have placed great hopes in it; indeed, it is seen by many as a real political victory over the leaderships of the old parties like the MVR, PPT, Podemos, and all those other organizations that for years have fed a tiny group of fat bureaucrats while the majority grew thinner by the day. However, I must say to you that the way it has been presented by President Chávez will not succeed in bringing in the real class fighters, the honest revolutionaries working within the trade-union movement. And that is why we insist on taking part in this debate. We have a view of how to build a revolutionary party in Venezuela, which is imperative if the struggle for a revolutionary process is to continue and develop to the point where it can seize from the capitalists their economic, political, and military power. Until now, we have seen nothing of that in the discussion about the PSUV.
(...) [on chavez' announcement of the PSUV] What is most worrying is that the president ended up by doing exactly what he criticized. He criticized the political cannibalism that characterizes the organizations of the Left, but then he went on to say that anyone who does not share his views is a counterrevolutionary. I think this is a serious mistake, because far from encouraging debate it closes it down and encourages the sectarianism that the president has said he is anxious to fight.
(...) The president says, for example, that the reformists are a danger—and I agree. And yet it is my view that the program the president is putting forward rests on a reformist conception, and that there is no perspective for a break with the logic of capital. Let me explain. After the great neoliberal offensive of the 1990s, we are seeing again multimillion-dollar investments by international capital in strategic sectors of the economy such as oil, mining, coal, construction, and infrastructural projects. International consortia from China, Russia, and Iran are exploiting our workers more than ever. I don’t believe that some multinationals are better than others. They are all essentially concerned with monopolizing production and trade, exploiting workers, pillaging the natural resources of nations and intervening politically in the economic decision-making processes of those countries. This strikes at the heart of the kind of economic model we are building.
(...) The president represents investment by the multinationals as a step forward. I see it as mortgaging the revolution.
(...) [this is relevant - because it has now been nationalized - what does that tell us?] Equally worrying is the president’s announcement that Sidor [a major steel company] will not be nationalized because it is being run by “good capitalists.” In fact, this company was privatized under the Fourth Republic and is owned by a multinational consortium headed by Techint of Argentina.
(...) [W]e wonder when we began to speak of “good” and “bad” capitalists?’
(...) The president is currently making a lot of public references to China. We would ask him not to do that, because capitalism was restored in China a number of years ago, and today it is the country where the working class is most exploited. They are modern-day slaves, led by a rotten party that calls itself communist, but is in fact completely subject to the multinationals. To cap it all, the Chinese have just introduced into the constitution the right to private property. China is hardly a good example.
(...) [tension between state- and public- in state/public-ownership of means of production] Another important issue is the role of social classes in this revolution. You don’t have to refer to Marx, Engels, Lenin, or Trotsky to know that the only way to overturn capitalism, a system in which a minority imposes its will on the majority, is that the working class and the people—we who are the majority and the producers—take the lead in expropriating the enterprises and place them under our control. In that sense, what we mean by socialism is very simply stated. Yet that is becoming more and more difficult in Venezuela. We workers are not in that position, even in the key sectors of the economy, to contemplate even joint management, let alone workers control. The government will not consider the possibility of co-management in strategic sectors.
(...) This suggests that the government’s program does not include expropriation, and nor will the PSUV’s. But if this doesn’t happen, we will not be moving toward socialism, but only toward some kind of state capitalism with a developmentalist perspective. This leaves private property untouched, and means that capitalist exploitation and the accumulation of profit by a very few will continue.
(...) [on trade union autonomy]THIS IS a really important issue. The president can’t change history and argue that those of us who are fighting for the independence of the trade-union movement have somehow been “poisoned” by the experience of the Fourth Republic. On the contrary, trade union autonomy is the key antidote to bureaucratization; that’s why the revolution was saved in 2002 and 2003, and as long as it continues it will be the key safeguard of the revolution.
(...) [and this doesn't mean their de-politicization - it means their unwillingness to submit to power] For forty years the Venezuelan trade-union movement lived through its worst period, because workers were puppets in the games played by the old parties (Copei and AD) and the bosses’ organizations. Venezuelans still remember how AD (Democratic Action) decided the fate of workers, bought and sold contracts, and worked with the government to control the unions and the CTV. We should remember that the bosses’ strike of 2002–03 was led by CTV and Fedecámaras (the bosses’ organization) working hand in hand. The raison d’être of the new UNT union is exactly the opposite: to fight for trade union autonomy, and organize the workers to fight against any attempt to submit them to political control or give in to compromises.
(...) [eschewing universal representation, even as has claimed status of universal subject]The president has to understand that because of what we call the class instinct, and the levels of class and revolutionary consciousness, as well as because of their relationship with the bosses, the behavior of workers is different from that of peasants, communities, or students.
(...) The worst thing about the president’s comments, however, is the suggestion that by fighting for the independence of the working-class movement we are playing a counterrevolutionary role. That is not true. With other comrades we have built a national trade-union current that as well as fighting against bureaucracy and for socialism, is most committed to a fierce defense of trade-union autonomy. The second congress of the UNT was proof of what I am arguing. What happened there was not just about five different factions or currents fighting or some leaders squabbling with others because we have personal disagreements, and President Chávez is wrong to describe it that way. In fact, for the last two years “the mother of all battles” has been under way between two conceptions—on the one hand those who want to tie the trade unions to the government, and on the other, those of us who are fighting for the sovereignty and independence of the trade-union movement.
(...) As PST-La Chispa (Workers’ Socialist Party) we are proud to have been the first political organization to support Hugo Chávez’s presidential candidacy. He will remember the first meetings we organized in the La Quizanda district of Valencia and with the textile workers of Aragua. So our history is unimpeachable.
(...) We are at the forefront of the struggle against the CTV, we supported the creation of the FBT (Bolivarian Workers’ Front), and we are enthusiastically behind the UNT. We joined the best activists in resisting the coup of April 11, 2002, and we were centrally involved in the recovery of the oil industry during the bosses’ lockout of 2002–03. Our record is an extremely honorable one.
(...) THE PRESIDENT has tried to use Rosa Luxemburg’s writings to support his arguments against trade-union independence—but we have to see her positions in the particular political and historical context in which she put them forward. When she discussed the question of trade-union autonomy she was referring to the German Social Democratic Party and arguing against syndicalist and bureaucratic tendencies within the unions. As a Trotskyist I have to recognize that Trotsky was wrong when he argued that the trade unions in Russia should not be autonomous shortly after the Bolshevik victory. Luckily, Lenin participated in the debate and he argued for autonomy. Trotsky’s arguments had real force, given that this was the time of the war economy, when there was hunger, civil war, physical assaults against working-class and trade-union leaders, and a confrontation with the holy alliance of the imperialist counterrevolution. Yet even so he was wrong while Lenin was right.
(...) And there is another issue related to autonomy. The FBT and the Labor Ministry allege that the UNT is not fulfilling its historic role and should therefore disappear. At the same time they are talking about setting up parallel structures and putting forward a series of proposals that will decimate the trade-union movement. It is crucial that these proposals are seriously and carefully discussed by the working class.
(...) It is because we are independent that day in and day out we are able to fearlessly express our views on the errors—sometimes the appalling errors—that the government is committing. Public-sector workers cannot be left waiting for twenty-seven months for their contract to be negotiated. And it seems that the oil workers will face a similar fate. The key question is whether it is right to struggle for the independence of the trade union, and whether our exposure of these issues makes us counterrevolutionaries.
(...) Of course this is not just about trade-union autonomy. It is also about the relationship between the PSUV and the government. Will all PSUV members be obliged to support the decisions of the government and its bureaucrats? Will the new party be more than just an appendage of the government?
(...) For me this is the key question. How is the PSUV being built? I want to express my solidarity with thousands of my compatriots who went to Caracas to take part in the event and who were not only excluded, but mistreated and beaten in the bargain. On television we saw governors, mayors, and deputies who do not have mass support occupying the first rows. There were bosses and bureaucrats present who have defended the bosses, and a number of people who have been accused of corruption and the defense of policies that did not reflect the interests of the people. That is why there is so much discontent—because people know that this process has begun in a very questionable way.
(...) [on the PSUV] WE HAVE to recognize that the people have placed great hopes in it; indeed, it is seen by many as a real political victory over the leaderships of the old parties like the MVR, PPT, Podemos, and all those other organizations that for years have fed a tiny group of fat bureaucrats while the majority grew thinner by the day. However, I must say to you that the way it has been presented by President Chávez will not succeed in bringing in the real class fighters, the honest revolutionaries working within the trade-union movement. And that is why we insist on taking part in this debate. We have a view of how to build a revolutionary party in Venezuela, which is imperative if the struggle for a revolutionary process is to continue and develop to the point where it can seize from the capitalists their economic, political, and military power. Until now, we have seen nothing of that in the discussion about the PSUV.
the struggle for workers' power in venezuela (stuart munckton, july 2007):
However, enormous hopes were raised with the formation of the National Union of Workers (UNT) in 2003, which supported the revolutionary process. The UNT quickly overtook the right-wing, discredited Confederation of Venezuelan Workers (CTV), which had helped organise attempts to overthrow the Chavez government.
(...) The UNT has since been weakened by internal fighting, and the movement for co-management has largely stalled. While Chavez has called for workers to be in the forefront of the revolution, there is a difficult struggle to find a way to advance the organisation of workers in order to drive the increasingly radical economic program of the revolution forward and develop workers’ power.
(...) “Everyone inside the UNT agreed, when we met with them, that it has never been as dispersed and fractured as it is now”, Fuentes said. “It is now made up of five different currents, and there is a sense that perhaps the UNT will completely split. At the moment it is a de facto split, where everyone refers to themselves as a particular current of the UNT. No-one actually speaks on behalf of the UNT as a whole.
[THE TWO ISSUES]
(...) Fuentes commented on two of the key issues of debate within the union movement. “The first is the role of the union in relation to the government, which partially comes down to how to categorise the government, and beyond that the state.” Fuentes said that while the debate is not expressed in such a counterposed way, it is “essentially about whether the role of the union movement is solely to support government policies, or should the union movement also defend workers against some actions, of, if not so much the government, then the state bureaucracy.”
(...) Fuentes told GLW that the second issue related to the recent legislation allowing for the formation of workers’ councils in public and private workplaces across the country, in order to allow workers to exercise democratic control over production. Fuentes said this has provoked the question of “what is the role of unions themselves? Is there a need to go beyond unions to focus on the workers’ councils, giving unions a secondary role? Should the unions and such councils go hand in hand in the next stage of this process, or are unions more important than the workers’ councils?” Fuentes said the latter view “comes from one of the currents that is very concerned about the workers’ councils, [as it] doesn’t believe they will be real organs of power, and therefore doesn’t want to give up the existing role of unions”.
(...) [very important: this transforms the question of autonomy, certainly, since that typically refers to remaining autonomous from a state that stands apart from Labor] Fuentes said that “there is an important discussion that is becoming more and more public, which is around the concept [promoted by Chavez] of creating socialist state enterprises”. This is a discussion on how state-owned industry should be organised and how it can be integrated into a new, democratically planned economy run according to people’s needs. The role of the corrupt state bureaucracy the Chavez government has inherited from previous regimes has proven that simply having industry state-owned doesn’t mean it will automatically be run in such a way, but can instead be a source of corruption run on behalf of the old elite.
(...) “But it is unclear exactly what scope these councils will have, and what their intersection with the communal councils will be. Some in the union movement were a bit concerned about some statements made by the labour minister that seemed to imply that the councils would essentially be given a supervisory role, rather than be real decision-making bodies in the workplace. But I don’t think the question has been resolved yet.”
(...) One of the aims of the brigade of Australian unionists to Venezuela in May was to gather more information for a debate within the International Labour Organisation about whether it should continue recognising the discredited CTV, or the UNT. Fuentes said that whatever problems the UNT is struggling to overcome, it was clear that the CTV no longer has any real weight among Venezulean workers.
However, enormous hopes were raised with the formation of the National Union of Workers (UNT) in 2003, which supported the revolutionary process. The UNT quickly overtook the right-wing, discredited Confederation of Venezuelan Workers (CTV), which had helped organise attempts to overthrow the Chavez government.
(...) The UNT has since been weakened by internal fighting, and the movement for co-management has largely stalled. While Chavez has called for workers to be in the forefront of the revolution, there is a difficult struggle to find a way to advance the organisation of workers in order to drive the increasingly radical economic program of the revolution forward and develop workers’ power.
(...) “Everyone inside the UNT agreed, when we met with them, that it has never been as dispersed and fractured as it is now”, Fuentes said. “It is now made up of five different currents, and there is a sense that perhaps the UNT will completely split. At the moment it is a de facto split, where everyone refers to themselves as a particular current of the UNT. No-one actually speaks on behalf of the UNT as a whole.
[THE TWO ISSUES]
(...) Fuentes commented on two of the key issues of debate within the union movement. “The first is the role of the union in relation to the government, which partially comes down to how to categorise the government, and beyond that the state.” Fuentes said that while the debate is not expressed in such a counterposed way, it is “essentially about whether the role of the union movement is solely to support government policies, or should the union movement also defend workers against some actions, of, if not so much the government, then the state bureaucracy.”
(...) Fuentes told GLW that the second issue related to the recent legislation allowing for the formation of workers’ councils in public and private workplaces across the country, in order to allow workers to exercise democratic control over production. Fuentes said this has provoked the question of “what is the role of unions themselves? Is there a need to go beyond unions to focus on the workers’ councils, giving unions a secondary role? Should the unions and such councils go hand in hand in the next stage of this process, or are unions more important than the workers’ councils?” Fuentes said the latter view “comes from one of the currents that is very concerned about the workers’ councils, [as it] doesn’t believe they will be real organs of power, and therefore doesn’t want to give up the existing role of unions”.
(...) [very important: this transforms the question of autonomy, certainly, since that typically refers to remaining autonomous from a state that stands apart from Labor] Fuentes said that “there is an important discussion that is becoming more and more public, which is around the concept [promoted by Chavez] of creating socialist state enterprises”. This is a discussion on how state-owned industry should be organised and how it can be integrated into a new, democratically planned economy run according to people’s needs. The role of the corrupt state bureaucracy the Chavez government has inherited from previous regimes has proven that simply having industry state-owned doesn’t mean it will automatically be run in such a way, but can instead be a source of corruption run on behalf of the old elite.
(...) “But it is unclear exactly what scope these councils will have, and what their intersection with the communal councils will be. Some in the union movement were a bit concerned about some statements made by the labour minister that seemed to imply that the councils would essentially be given a supervisory role, rather than be real decision-making bodies in the workplace. But I don’t think the question has been resolved yet.”
(...) One of the aims of the brigade of Australian unionists to Venezuela in May was to gather more information for a debate within the International Labour Organisation about whether it should continue recognising the discredited CTV, or the UNT. Fuentes said that whatever problems the UNT is struggling to overcome, it was clear that the CTV no longer has any real weight among Venezulean workers.
venezuelan steel nationalization (April 2008, Green Left Weekly):
(...) Sidor was privatised in 1997, one year before Chavez was elected. The major share-holder has been an Argentinean-controlled conglomerate Techint. Since privatisation, the workforce has been slashed from around 15,000 to just over 5000 and the company has used contract labour in violation of a government decree banning the practice.
(...) [not fully beholden to state interests; in the sense that there was opposition to the chavistas, which chavez realized] The move to re-nationalise Sidor came after more than a year of intense struggle by the Sidor workers, together with the people of Guayana, against not just Sidor management but also the policies of the local “Chavista” governor, Fransisco Rangel Gomez, and the labour minister Jose Ramon Rivero — both of whom have been accused of anti-worker actions.
(...) The move comes as part of a “second wave” of nationalisations being carried out by the Chavez government, following the recent nationalisation of Venezuela’s cement industry (nearly 40 factories), several milk producing plants and the subsequent takeover of 32 large farms. These moves are part of government efforts to recuperate control over food production and the construction industry — both of which play a crucial role in national development.
(...) The labour movement has been electrified by the Sidor victory. In another victory, which reflects the struggle within the pro-Chavez camp between more right-wing sections and those seeking to deepen the revolution, Rivero has been replaced as labour minister, presumably due to his bad role in the Sidor dispute, as well as his public support for splitting the pro-Chavez National Union of Workers (UNT) and creating a new federation.
------
from Stalin Borges, UNT National Coordinator:
(...) [interpretation of what was being demanded] This decision by the Chavez government, justly interpreting the demand raised by the workers and people of Guyana (and won by the colossal struggle of the Sidor workers and the revolutionary people of Guyana with the support of people from across the country) changes the political conjuncture following the defeat of Chavez’s proposed constitutional reforms in the December 2 referendum.
(...) [concretizing the interests of Capital] The majority of Sidor shares were owned by a corporation comprised of capital from a range of countries including Argentina, Brazil, Mexico and Venezuela. The Argentinean and Brazilian interests were closely tied to the governments of those two countries, and the Venezuelan interests were tied to key families of the Venezuelan oligarchy.
(...) [what can chavez do? listen to the workers] The will of the Sidor workers is to manage production and the administration of the company. They will present a written proposal for how the new Sidor should function. Implementing the policies supported by the majority of Sidor workers would be, beyond speeches, a clear demonstration by Chavez and the government that they do want to embark on the path of socialism.
(...) [again, chavez has not been infallible] Workers have seen that it is possible to take away control of a company from a powerful transnational and that this company can be administered by its workers with good results. They have seen it is possible to change the course of the government — and even of Chavez himself — regarding some of its mistaken policies.
(...) We need to take up the call made by Chavez for the working class to assume its protagonist role in the Bolivarian revolution.
(...) For a while now, [rivero] has acted in favour of the bosses and the bureaucrats, favouring the plans of the right wing within and outside the Bolivarian process. His last move was to decree a new union confederation to split the UNT. This problem was resolved when Chavez, interpreting the sentiment of workers against Rivero, removed him from his position.
(...) It is urgently needed to convoke a meeting of all the currents within the UNT and the revolution in order to begin to take firm steps towards a necessary regroupment and unification of a working class leadership — one that is democratic, pluralist, and independent of the state. Let the workers, the grassroots unions and their natural leaders be the ones who define the steps towards the reorganisation of the UNT — without excluding any current that supports the revolution.
(...) The mobilisation of the working class — involving the UNT, the social movements and the battalions of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) — is the only guarantee to successfully confronting the right-wing opposition, as well as the betrayal of the “endogenous right” within Chavismo.
(...) Sidor was privatised in 1997, one year before Chavez was elected. The major share-holder has been an Argentinean-controlled conglomerate Techint. Since privatisation, the workforce has been slashed from around 15,000 to just over 5000 and the company has used contract labour in violation of a government decree banning the practice.
(...) [not fully beholden to state interests; in the sense that there was opposition to the chavistas, which chavez realized] The move to re-nationalise Sidor came after more than a year of intense struggle by the Sidor workers, together with the people of Guayana, against not just Sidor management but also the policies of the local “Chavista” governor, Fransisco Rangel Gomez, and the labour minister Jose Ramon Rivero — both of whom have been accused of anti-worker actions.
(...) The move comes as part of a “second wave” of nationalisations being carried out by the Chavez government, following the recent nationalisation of Venezuela’s cement industry (nearly 40 factories), several milk producing plants and the subsequent takeover of 32 large farms. These moves are part of government efforts to recuperate control over food production and the construction industry — both of which play a crucial role in national development.
(...) The labour movement has been electrified by the Sidor victory. In another victory, which reflects the struggle within the pro-Chavez camp between more right-wing sections and those seeking to deepen the revolution, Rivero has been replaced as labour minister, presumably due to his bad role in the Sidor dispute, as well as his public support for splitting the pro-Chavez National Union of Workers (UNT) and creating a new federation.
------
from Stalin Borges, UNT National Coordinator:
(...) [interpretation of what was being demanded] This decision by the Chavez government, justly interpreting the demand raised by the workers and people of Guyana (and won by the colossal struggle of the Sidor workers and the revolutionary people of Guyana with the support of people from across the country) changes the political conjuncture following the defeat of Chavez’s proposed constitutional reforms in the December 2 referendum.
(...) [concretizing the interests of Capital] The majority of Sidor shares were owned by a corporation comprised of capital from a range of countries including Argentina, Brazil, Mexico and Venezuela. The Argentinean and Brazilian interests were closely tied to the governments of those two countries, and the Venezuelan interests were tied to key families of the Venezuelan oligarchy.
(...) [what can chavez do? listen to the workers] The will of the Sidor workers is to manage production and the administration of the company. They will present a written proposal for how the new Sidor should function. Implementing the policies supported by the majority of Sidor workers would be, beyond speeches, a clear demonstration by Chavez and the government that they do want to embark on the path of socialism.
(...) [again, chavez has not been infallible] Workers have seen that it is possible to take away control of a company from a powerful transnational and that this company can be administered by its workers with good results. They have seen it is possible to change the course of the government — and even of Chavez himself — regarding some of its mistaken policies.
(...) We need to take up the call made by Chavez for the working class to assume its protagonist role in the Bolivarian revolution.
(...) For a while now, [rivero] has acted in favour of the bosses and the bureaucrats, favouring the plans of the right wing within and outside the Bolivarian process. His last move was to decree a new union confederation to split the UNT. This problem was resolved when Chavez, interpreting the sentiment of workers against Rivero, removed him from his position.
(...) It is urgently needed to convoke a meeting of all the currents within the UNT and the revolution in order to begin to take firm steps towards a necessary regroupment and unification of a working class leadership — one that is democratic, pluralist, and independent of the state. Let the workers, the grassroots unions and their natural leaders be the ones who define the steps towards the reorganisation of the UNT — without excluding any current that supports the revolution.
(...) The mobilisation of the working class — involving the UNT, the social movements and the battalions of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) — is the only guarantee to successfully confronting the right-wing opposition, as well as the betrayal of the “endogenous right” within Chavismo.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
venezuelan workers to join PSUV:
[joining the party] Venezuela’s Unión Nacional de Trabajadores (UNT or National Workers’ Union) has called on its 2 million workers to unite in the Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela (PSUV or United Socialist Party of Venezuela), despite the bitter infighting and conflicts over tactics, strategy and politics that had threatened the union confederation’s participation in the Bolivarian revolution.
(...) This clientilist, corporatist union close to the discredited elitist party Acción Democrática, has since been eclipsed by the UNT and the new union confederation’s support for Chávez and the Bolivarian revolution. However, the debate between workers organised in different factions in the UNT over the extent to which the union should support the President, has created divisions that have diverted workers into political infighting.
(...) [the crux of the matter] Five political ‘currents’ are fighting for control in the UNT, and the two most important factions - CCURA (Corriente Clasista, Unitaria, Revolucionaria, Autónoma or Autonomous, Revolutionary, United Class Current) and FSBT (Fuerza Socialista Bolivariano de Trabajadores or Workers’ Socialist Bolivarian Force) - have been in an often bitter fight to make the UNT an unconditional Chávista union, as the FSBT desires, or to make it more independent, as CCURA wants.
(...) The last UNT Congress, in 2006, ended in fights, walkouts and the split into the five political factions, but Orlando Chirino, CCURA faction leader, believes it is wrong to describe the divisions as personal. ‘A battle has been fought between two conceptions - on the one hand those who want to tie the union to Chávez, and on the other those who are fighting for sovereignty and an autonomous and independent union movement.’
(...) But UNT organisers in the FSBT faction, such as Jacobo Torres de León, claim the divisions have meant the union has failed to concentrate on organising workers. The FSBT points out that workers’ unionisation rate in Venezuela is still less than 20 per cent, and argues that the union should concentrate on sindicalist demands in workplaces and be close to the President politically to have influence.
(...) [the question of the uniqueness of labor as a social movement] Even President Chávez has criticised the UNT’s failure to organise workers in a united union, and he has even called into question ‘the idea that workers and unions are central to the revolution’, choosing instead to emphasise the PSUV’s and the barrio consejos comunales centrality to the revolution.
(...) But Chávez’s impatience with the UNT’s infighting took him further earlier this year when he declared to a PSUV political meeting in Caracas that ‘unions should not be autonomous - one must put a stop to that.’ This prompted Orlando Chirino to respond to the President declaring that workers have the right to politicise their unions and be independent of the state.
(...) ‘Lenin wrote that unions should be independent… when Stalin took power in Russia and led the state and the party, one of the first things he eliminated was the independence of the unions, precisely against the opinion of Lenin,’ Chirino wrote, and, insisting on the unions’ right to be sovereign and autonomous, he recalled President Chávez’s statement that ‘the PSUV will not be a Stalinist political party.’
(...) That the UNT has finally called on all workers to join the PSUV does not mean that the dispute between the union’s factions has been resolved. The FSBT believes that this call will move the UNT closer to Chávez, while the CCURA has recognised that the union cannot stand apart from the 5.7million Venezuelans that have registered an interest in participating in the party.
(...) Pérez realises that massive worker participation in the new party is the best insurance against what he calls ‘bureaucratisation’ and the threat that a clientilist relationship between the PSUV and the union, similar to the relationship between the rightist Acción Democrática and the discredited CTV union in the Nineties, could develop. ‘CCURA will join the PSUV, we will fight for workers’ control, and we want to maintain union autonomy - not for its own sake, but because independence is a revolutionary necessity,’ Pérez says. ‘There is no contradiction between organising in the PSUV to support the revolution, and also having independent unions. Both are part of the same fight towards socialism in Venezuela.’
[joining the party] Venezuela’s Unión Nacional de Trabajadores (UNT or National Workers’ Union) has called on its 2 million workers to unite in the Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela (PSUV or United Socialist Party of Venezuela), despite the bitter infighting and conflicts over tactics, strategy and politics that had threatened the union confederation’s participation in the Bolivarian revolution.
(...) This clientilist, corporatist union close to the discredited elitist party Acción Democrática, has since been eclipsed by the UNT and the new union confederation’s support for Chávez and the Bolivarian revolution. However, the debate between workers organised in different factions in the UNT over the extent to which the union should support the President, has created divisions that have diverted workers into political infighting.
(...) [the crux of the matter] Five political ‘currents’ are fighting for control in the UNT, and the two most important factions - CCURA (Corriente Clasista, Unitaria, Revolucionaria, Autónoma or Autonomous, Revolutionary, United Class Current) and FSBT (Fuerza Socialista Bolivariano de Trabajadores or Workers’ Socialist Bolivarian Force) - have been in an often bitter fight to make the UNT an unconditional Chávista union, as the FSBT desires, or to make it more independent, as CCURA wants.
(...) The last UNT Congress, in 2006, ended in fights, walkouts and the split into the five political factions, but Orlando Chirino, CCURA faction leader, believes it is wrong to describe the divisions as personal. ‘A battle has been fought between two conceptions - on the one hand those who want to tie the union to Chávez, and on the other those who are fighting for sovereignty and an autonomous and independent union movement.’
(...) But UNT organisers in the FSBT faction, such as Jacobo Torres de León, claim the divisions have meant the union has failed to concentrate on organising workers. The FSBT points out that workers’ unionisation rate in Venezuela is still less than 20 per cent, and argues that the union should concentrate on sindicalist demands in workplaces and be close to the President politically to have influence.
(...) [the question of the uniqueness of labor as a social movement] Even President Chávez has criticised the UNT’s failure to organise workers in a united union, and he has even called into question ‘the idea that workers and unions are central to the revolution’, choosing instead to emphasise the PSUV’s and the barrio consejos comunales centrality to the revolution.
(...) But Chávez’s impatience with the UNT’s infighting took him further earlier this year when he declared to a PSUV political meeting in Caracas that ‘unions should not be autonomous - one must put a stop to that.’ This prompted Orlando Chirino to respond to the President declaring that workers have the right to politicise their unions and be independent of the state.
(...) ‘Lenin wrote that unions should be independent… when Stalin took power in Russia and led the state and the party, one of the first things he eliminated was the independence of the unions, precisely against the opinion of Lenin,’ Chirino wrote, and, insisting on the unions’ right to be sovereign and autonomous, he recalled President Chávez’s statement that ‘the PSUV will not be a Stalinist political party.’
(...) That the UNT has finally called on all workers to join the PSUV does not mean that the dispute between the union’s factions has been resolved. The FSBT believes that this call will move the UNT closer to Chávez, while the CCURA has recognised that the union cannot stand apart from the 5.7million Venezuelans that have registered an interest in participating in the party.
(...) Pérez realises that massive worker participation in the new party is the best insurance against what he calls ‘bureaucratisation’ and the threat that a clientilist relationship between the PSUV and the union, similar to the relationship between the rightist Acción Democrática and the discredited CTV union in the Nineties, could develop. ‘CCURA will join the PSUV, we will fight for workers’ control, and we want to maintain union autonomy - not for its own sake, but because independence is a revolutionary necessity,’ Pérez says. ‘There is no contradiction between organising in the PSUV to support the revolution, and also having independent unions. Both are part of the same fight towards socialism in Venezuela.’
nationalization of SIDOR, reuters report
But he will soon have to deal with complex labor relations with Sidor's almost 10,000 workers and management.
Sidor was founded four decades ago and grew rapidly in the 1970s oil boom to become one of Latin America's largest steel operations.
The union is one of the strongest in the country and is divided between pro-Chavez and opposition tendencies.
But he will soon have to deal with complex labor relations with Sidor's almost 10,000 workers and management.
Sidor was founded four decades ago and grew rapidly in the 1970s oil boom to become one of Latin America's largest steel operations.
The union is one of the strongest in the country and is divided between pro-Chavez and opposition tendencies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)