Autonomism + Socialism United: Bolivarian Circles in frontline of the revolution : Melbourne Indymedia

BolivarianCircles2.jpg
by Fightback! + reprinted in Green Left Weekly Sunday June 08, 2003 at 06:24 PM
GLW@greenleft.org.au (+61 2) 9690 1230 - Fax: (+61 2) 9690 1381 PO Box 394, Broadway, Sydney, NSW 2007, AUSTRALIA -

BolivarianCircles3.jpg
by Fightback! + reprinted in Green Left Weekly Sunday June 08, 2003 at 06:24 PM
GLW@greenleft.org.au (+61 2) 9690 1230 - Fax: (+61 2) 9690 1381 PO Box 394, Broadway, Sydney, NSW 2007, AUSTRALIA -

BolivarianCircles4.jpg
by Fightback! + reprinted in Green Left Weekly Sunday June 08, 2003 at 06:24 PM
GLW@greenleft.org.au (+61 2) 9690 1230 - Fax: (+61 2) 9690 1381 PO Box 394, Broadway, Sydney, NSW 2007, AUSTRALIA -

Okay, so lemme get this straight:

Green Left Weekly and it's parent company, the Democratic Socialist Party, oppose the current economic system, right? Why is it that the DSP uses tried-and-true methods of neo-liberal colonial economics like "advertising" and "brand-name recognition"?

Nobody here is stupid enough to actually believe that "you" call it "participatory democracy" - what "you" do is jump bandwagons and utilise catch-phrases with the gusto and motive of a marketing team, fitting for the flagship as truthful and direct as Time Magazine. Mayday (sorry, "M1"), black blocs (sorry, "red" blocs), anarchist (sorry, "participatory democracy") organising - what next, black flags in the name of Che?

What happens when the converts you win with a erronious vision of "autonomy" discover you're not actually the cutting edge of revolution, but a party of old-guards trying to keep up with the times by adopting anarchist methods without any concept of the motives behind them - what if they discover that there really IS a product that's JUST HOW YOU SELL IT, but CHEAPER? (It's true, kids! New Anarchism from Blammo! No fees! No newspaper subscriptions! No boring lectures and phone calls demanding you break up with your bourgeois boyfriend because he's against the party!)

Of course, you could just be trying to win over anarchists with promises of "oh, it's just like where you are, but we get to wear red shirts and there's five times as many of us, so come join the Party!", but nobody actually believes that big rock candy mountain bullshit.
> Hugo Chavez is, without a doubt, a leader for all
> communities.We accept his leadership at a national level,
> as the person who has opened the political space and
> allowed for us — the forgotten, the neglected, the
> oppressed — to be able to stand up for our rights.
What do you take us for? If you understood anything about the word "autonomy" you'd realise that "the person who has opened the political and allowed for us" is the OPPOSITE of autonomy. Do you think we're so stupid we can't see through your recruiting veil? I think you must, unless, like the marketeers, you're as dumb as you you assume your audience is.

You spot a trend and go for it and like Shell hope nobody discovers your "greenwashing" (or in this case, "blackwashing") is actually just media hype.

Of for christ sake Autono/maton, get over yourself!

Instead of engaging in petty stupidity and babble about "marketing" and whinging about the DSP or Green Left, why don't you try and do something novel and actually try and engage in political discussion and debate about one of the most exciting developments in Latin America (or is that just too difficult or completely alien to you!)

If you took your head out of your arse and stopped whinging for a moment you might actually notice that there is a real live revolutionary process taking place in Venezuela at this very moment, one that the United States has been doing everything in its power to try and stop (if the US had its way it would be Chile all over again).

Chavez has opened up the political space to allow people to independently organise and start to take control of Venezuelan society. The relationship between Chavez and the people is closely tied - it was the people who elected Chavez in the late 90s and it was them who defended him against the coup and the United States, this as a result has allowed Chavez has opened up the political space for the people to move forward and to take control of what is happening in Venenezuela. What is happening in Venenzuela is a real live MASS movement, organised and made up of the workers and poor.

When the Doctor in the article talks about Chavez "opening up the political space", he is talking about how Chavez has ensured that there has been a move away from using state structures which controlled and organised society (to the benefit of the rich), instead moving to the power to the Bolivarian circles - allowing the poor and the working class to control and implement social activities and policy. There are now over 70,000 Bolivarian circles (there was only 8,000 at the time of the attempted US Coup in 2002). The circles are based in the slums where the majority of the poor and working class live.

When Doctor in the article talks about "opening up the political space", he is talking about how Chavez has taken the control of the oil companies out of the hands of the rich and put it into the hands of the workers.

He is talking about how the Chavez government has built more house for the poor in the last 3 years, then have been built in the last 20 years. He is talking about how the wages of the poor have been increased three-fold.

He is talking about how Chavez has disarmed the reactionary and pro-business police in all the major cities and municipalities and he is talking about how Chavez is has taken on the pro-business big media (you think the corporate media in Australia is bad, well it is nothing, absolutely nothing to the pro-corporate media in Venezuela).

He is talking about how Chavez has implement free medical care (you can't organise "autonomously" or in anyway other fucking way if the people are too sick to do anything) and he is talking about how Chavez has began land reform, taking land from the rich, and redistributing it to the poor and finally he is talking about how all of this and more has opened up the political space for the people to organise and start to take control of Venezuelan society.

As Chavez said "We have burnt our boats, there is no turning back… we will consolidate and deepen the revolution".

Autono/maton wrote:

> Why is it that the DSP uses tried-and-true methods of neo-liberal colonial economics like "advertising" and "brand-name recognition"?

huhu, neolibcol... anything else evil? actually, *I* posted this very intersting article i found on my frequent visit to the GLW website, adn i found it inspiring like i find the whole bolivarian revolution inspiring, as opposed to the petty-bourgeois brisbane purer-than-pure-anarchist scene.

> Nobody here is stupid enough to actually believe that "you" call it "participatory democracy"

can't you read? it's a quote ("") from the interview.

> a marketing team

huhu, me alone, a "marketing" team. nono, too much honour...

> black blocs (sorry, "red" blocs)

'red blocs' are a term of socialist alternative!

> anarchist (sorry, "participatory democracy") organising

unfortunately a contradiction in itself (in australia)

> a party of old-guards trying to keep up with the times by adopting anarchist methods

i gotta tell this some young dsp friends - they'll have a good laugh that you realy think that they might want to adopt 'anarchist methods'. and by the way, the average age of a socialist activist is quite low as far as i discovered...

> phone calls demanding you break up with your bourgeois boyfriend because he's against the party!

don't think so... cheap slander i guess.

> Of course, you could just be trying to win over anarchists

they address autonomists, as there are actually some who do have a consistent analysis of how the world functions.

> What do you take us for? If you understood anything about the word "autonomy" you'd realise that "the person who has opened the political and allowed for us" is the OPPOSITE of autonomy.

do you know ANYTHING about the bolivarian revolution in venezuela and hugo chavez' part in it? have you any clue at all about how to build a revolution? autonomy: yes! organisation: certainly! (natural) leadership: inevitable!

> Do you think we're so stupid we can't see through your recruiting veil?

who is "you"? the coordinator of the Bolivarian Circles in Venezuela, who actually gave all these answers???

> I think you must, unless, like the marketeers, you're as dumb as you you assume your audience is.

i love you, too, dumb one :-*

Ok, Viva Chavez!, some great things are happening in Venezuela . However you should have a quick think about the point 'Autono/maton' was getting at, instead of mouthing off.

This is an interesting interview pubilshed initially by Fightback. So why was it neccesary to have the Green Left Weekly all over an article that is basically an internet cut and paste job? Why did they have to change the title to suggest a 'unitied front' type senerio between ideologies.

The only reason is to give their paper a good plug, reinforce 'brand recognition' among the lefties, and jump on the 'autonomist' band wagon. (Books not Bombs anyone?)

The cynic could then go on about how the stiff, old party line is no longer attracting or keeping party membership. Dogma and hierarchy is no longer cool right? Hence allowing and promoting a little content in the paper that places direct democratic, radical movements in a more postive light. Kinda like basking in the reflective glow to attract the kiddies. Except direct democracy is not a DSP/SA platform.

This contrasts to a time when such content would not get in, and anarchist seriously dumped on. For example, around june/july last year there was an minor insurrection in a mexican town, that was organised and lead by anarchists. Every other news service acknolwdged the core role of the anarchists, except the GLW which wrote them out of history in this instance.

BTW Technically Autonomists are not the same as Anarchists. The Autonomist were orginially younger Marxists in Italy from the late 1970's. They got sick of the strict party line, and began organising independantly and creatively from the main socialist parties.

But in the here and now I think Autonomist seems to be used by any radical that doesn't identify as an anarchist but can't stand the Trots.

autono-trot wrote:

'This is an interesting interview pubilshed initially by Fightback. So why was it neccesary to have the Green Left Weekly all over an article that is basically an internet cut and paste job? Why did they have to change the title to suggest a 'unitied front' type senerio between ideologies.'

Who is 'they'? Are you seriously suggesting this article was posted as a decision by the DSP as part of a campaign to to win over autonomists on the gounds that there is commonality - not in Australia - but in, of all places, Venezuela?

And this comes after years of the DSP waging a battle against autonomist organising. But suddenly the DSP has decided to change its tune - and wants to ride on the back of the experiences of the class struggle in Venezuela as its way of doing it right?

I have no idea whether or not the person who posted this article is a member of the DSP or not and frankly I don't give a shit. It seems obvious to me that the purpose of the post was to inform and get people thinking about the revolution unfolding in Venezuela.

Instead of actually trying to engage with a new revolutionary struggle, all that autono/maton did was go over the exact same old shit that sectarian anarchists have been spouting for years. His repsonse was to ignore eveything about the situation in Venezuela and repeat the same lines used against the DSP and GLW that I read three years ago. Really, if every time some one tries to bring up a new historical experience unfolding before our eyes the response is just the same stuff I have been reading for the last four years then what is the point if even entering into a discussion? I have heard everything autono/maton said BEFORE - a thousand times.

On Venezuela:
I must admit I find the title and openning spiel of the original post a bit strange

'Autnomism and socialism'? Socialism, up to now at least, has had nothing to do with the Venezuelan revolution. It has never been stated as the goal of the revolution - which has always focused on the question of particpatory democracy as opposed to representative democracy.

Hugo Chavez just a couple of days ago went out of his way to insist that he wasn't a communist and had no intention of trying to follow the path of Cuba. He told Marta Harnecker - a long time Marxist writer and journalist - a while back that he wasn't a Marxist because marxism was too European and the working class, as Marx described it, doesn't exist in Venezuela. He said he was neither a communist nor an anti-communist but a Bolivarian (after Simon Bolivar who liberateds a section of South America in the early 19th Century and dreamed of a united South America free from colonialism).

Chavez put the emphaisis in this interview on the need to create direct democracy - because, as he put it, representative democracy was inheriantly corrupt and undemocratic.

And it is true if you look at the actual measures implemented by the Chavez government - nothing approaching socialism has been pushed. In fact the economic policy of the Chavez government has been comparable to old style soft social democratic measures - a bit on an increase in spending on education and health, some small increases in wages for lowest paid workers, the beginings of land reform, making the richest 20% pay taxes for the first time (they are the only ones paying tax but still at a rate lower than in the US), and other measures aiming to assisting the poor, which is a good thing, but which leave the capitalist system most definately intact.

Where the real moves have been made, and why it is that you can consider what is occuring to be a revoluitonary proccess, is in the question of the self organaisation of the poor on a large scale. The Bolivarian Cirlces are just one example. What is decisive about the increases to education and health funding etc is not the money it self, but the way it has been allocated - it is basically put at the dispole of the poor communites themselves to find a use for.

The building of hoimes, roads, schools hospitals, the immunistion programs which have lowered infant mortaqlity - the key to these policies is the way they have been implemented with the full involvement and in paterneship with the communities involved - not simply as empty rhetoric but in reality. Grass roots co-operatives have been established through out poor communities that carry out projects with funds allocated byt he government, in somes cases, in other cases by cheap micro-credit dished out by a bank newy created for just that purpose.

The land reform laws, which are actually mainly aimed not at the rural but urban poor, who are much more numerous, are a good case in point. Land committees have been established through out the slums, which the poor who live in them, up until now, have had almost no control over, and communiites of no moer than 200 elect between 7 and 11 representatives to these committees.

Those elected tot hese committees got together and formulated the land reform law. It wasn't handed down from on high, the law was formulated by those directly affected by it. It gives ownership of the slums to those who live there - they get to own their property - bear in mind that only one thrid of this land was owned privately - another third was owned by the government and a further third disputed. So it amounts, not to nationalisation , but actually decentralisation - small scale privatisation of government land to the ownerhsip and control of those who live on it.

The purpose of the land committees also isn't just to formulate that law, they aer tasked with slef transformation and self government of the communities they are elected from.

zThe conscious goal of all of this is the create a situation where the poor govern themselves and have control of their own lives and resources. From this base, an alternative economic system could be built.

It isn't just that the governemnt has now got control of the oil industry - it is how they got control and how it is being run now. Control of the oil industry was taken by the pro-imperialist elites that ran it by the oil workers themselves and now the industry is run lagrely under workers control. There is discussion about sections of the oil industry being hand out to be run by worker co-operatives. The governemnt is putting together leglisation to introduce, across the country, democracy in the workplace - that is, at least an element of, workers control.

It is this work at creating the institutions for self ogranisation and governemnt of the poor that explain why the coup against Chavez was overturned so quickly last year. The central leaders of the government and the Bolviarian revolution were largely helpless and useless. It was the grass roots leaders organised in the Bolviarian circlers that were from the communiites, ahd workers alongside the communites that were able to facilitate the organisation of the communities to overturn the coup.

It was the links betweent he rank and file soldier and the poor communities that helped overtrun the coup in record time. - These were created when the government sent to soldiers into the poor communites, armed with limited resources, to discuss witht he porr what they wanted to spend the resources on and them work and longside them in making that happen. When the coup happenned the poor went to the barracks and called to the soldiers to come out to defend the government. Now, there are soldier - worker and soldier - peasant committees tasked with jointly defending the revolutionary procees.

Meanwhile, the right wing police force who have for decades carried out a reign of terror in the poor communites (where it is joked that it is better to be left with the muggers than call the police) are left powerless - forced to remain in their stations which are surrounded by soldiers - they have been more or less disarmed.

The situaion in Venezuela is something along the lines of dual power - many instituions of bourgios rule remain - the parliament, the courts, even the armed forces although they are partly transformed into something else (and hundreds of reactionary officers have been kicked out), the police, although brought to heel, still exist. Oh yeah, and there are political parties, I didn't quite get that comment at the start of the original post - althgouh it is true they don't play a role, including CHavez's governmeing party the MVR, in the new insitutions of the poor.

On the other hand there are new institutions, still developing and growing of direct, particapatory democracy - that organise the poor to govern themselves.

And the rich still control much of the economy (although the oil industry is the most important and accounts for 50% of government revenue) and they are using this control to destroy the economy (which has shrunk 30% since the start of the year due to sabotage - and the government continues to find and seize large amounts of hordered food).

The decisive battles still remain - the economic and political power of the rich will need to be taken from them in order that the poor can go forward to continue to govern themselves. This will require a uniting of the various communities and instituions - which is where I don't agree with the 'anonomy' in the title of the original post.

It might be better titled 'atonomy OR socialism' becuase socialism, which I think will be neccessary at some point if the revolutionary proccess is to go forward (althgouh, like I said, it hasn't even been mentioned by those involved int he revolution) and this will require, to implement, something more than 'autonomy' - although the self organisation of the poor will remain the baswe from which any alternative economic system in Venezuela will be built up from.

Bolívar’s image is worn on the
chests of young people”

Hugo Chávez, a progressive army officer and leader of the Bolivarian Movement, was recently elected president of Venezuela. José Reinaldo (Brazil), María del Carmen Morente (Spain) and Stephen O’Brien (Australia) interviewed him at the São Paulo Forum in El Salvador in July 1996. The following is abridged from his comments during that interview.

The Bolivarian Movement was born in the barracks some 15 years ago when a group of soldiers came to the conclusion that the enemy was not communism, but imperialism. For many years we worked carefully and gradually to develop a nationalist, patriotic movement with one hand in the barracks and another on the street. We developed a Bolivarian conception of revolution, which understands that we face a different empire to that confronted by [the leader of the movement for independence from Spain, General Símon] Bolívar. Bolívar, however, did foresee that North America was destined to plague us in the name of liberty. We also found inspiration in the ideas of one of his generals, Símon Rodríguez, who said that it is necessary to take up not just the anti-colonial struggle but to make a revolution which tackles all the political, economic, moral, ethical and cultural questions of society.

Our revolt of February 4, 1992, in which over 300 young officers and 10,000 soldiers rose up, was unsuccessful because, despite our close links with the street, the people weren’t sufficiently prepared to be able to back us up. Nevertheless, we have continued to build a growing movement in strategic alliance with the residents of the poor suburbs and the universities. As we have neither huge finances nor media outlets, we spread the word face to face. In this way we find that we get to know the concerns of the people. We identify two fundamental problems facing Venezuela: poverty and national independence.

We pose the questions of independence and sovereignty by calling for a new continent-wide independence movement. The current political model is mortally wounded and no viable alternative can exist without breaking the bourgeois, neoliberal system that has operated in Venezuela since 1945. In our model of democracy, the people, civil society, are protagonists who participate in making political, even military, decisions. There are no half-measures on questions of sovereignty. There has to be direct democracy, people’s government with popular assemblies and congresses where the people retain the right to remove, nominate, sanction, and recall their elected delegates and representatives.

As well as political democracy there has to be economic democracy. If an elite owns and controls big business such as oil and the mines there can be no real democracy nor social equality. Control over the productive apparatus of society has to be distributed. This can take forms such as community ownership, self-managed enterprises and cooperatives. We call for a people’s revolutionary constituent assembly to help reconstruct from below the republic, the state and the nation of Venezuela.

As well as alliances with left and revolutionary forces, our strategy supports the idea of a people’s civic-military movement which involves the democratisation of military power. We can’t continue to tolerate the elite using the army against the people. We want to unite the people and army (like in Cuba where they have the concept of the people in arms) to create a civic-military alliance. This concept of people-army unity has to be part of a new continental alliance of defence and security and independence.

We know many currents within the defense forces of the continent, who, while not necessarily revolutionary, are at least nationalist. There is one question which unites military professionals from Mexico to Argentina, as reactionary as they may be. Every military graduate who loves their profession opposes the further reduction, let alone elimination of their national army. The United States would like to see all of our armies reduced to instruments solely to combat drug trafficking or, as has happened in Panama, converted into a mere police force.

It will be a challenge to create this continental military alliance and to start interchanges of technology and experiences at different levels of the military hierarchy. In Panama, for example, we know young army personnel, especially those who are now police officers, who are inspired by General Omar Torrijos. [Torrijos negotiated the treaty which binds the United States to return the Panama Canal.] They still consider themselves soldiers and are willing to fight for the reinstallation of Panama’s own defense force.

Recently, some retired colonels met with us and questioned the purpose of the anti-guerrilla war, which they had fought some 30 years ago in Venezuela. “Who had been right”, they asked, “those who fought for the so-called democratic governments or the guerrillas who went to the mountains and raised the banner of communism?”

We want to establish a confederation of Latin American states for the new century. We want to create strong poles of development by joining the Caribbean basin though railways and linking them with the great rivers such as the Orinoco, the Amazon and the Plata. These are the arteries of our continent. We have resources of energy, gold, silver, petroleum and steel. If we use national capital and process them here in Latin America we can sow the seeds of a new continent and a new development. Europe is moving towards unity. We need to at least develop regional blocks, such as between Brazil and Venezuela.

There has been a resurgence of collective sentiments in Venezuela. The people are awakening and are in movement around a common project. Despite repression, people such as pensioners, school children and even the army have been prepared to go out of their houses into the street and not return until they have won what they are protesting for. Símon Rodríguez said that material force is in the masses. Moral force is with us. Fidel has said to us, “There you call the struggle Bolivarianism, here we call it socialism”. He also said something, which I never thought that I would hear from his lips, ”If you called your movement Christianity I would even be in agreement”. We have taken up Bolívar’s anti-imperialist struggle. In the barracks if a reactionary officer hears a soldier mention Bolívar the word is put about: “Watch that soldier who has been talking about Bolívar!” Just the name Bolívar scares them.

Our movement is gaining strength and very soon the world will know about the Venezuelan people. In Washington nobody mentions George Washington, in France no one talks of Napoleon, but in Venezuela the image of Bolívar is painted on the walls and his image is worn on the T-shirts on the chests of young people.u

[Translation by Stephen O’Brien.]