Life Among the Grantists: Letter to a Comrade, September 19, 2005

Comment: The communication that follows addresses itself to the coincidence that only a few months after the WIL leadership had voted against the resolution of our branch to the WIL 2005 National Congress, calling for a workers' party in Venezuela independent of all sectors of the bourgeoisie, just such a party was launched by forces within the Venezuelan workers' movement, a development that the WIL leadership continues to oppose.

* * *

Hello: I had originally decided not to respond to the National Committee letter, since I do not give a tinker’s dam about the National Committee, but I think it would be useful to make a couple of points in conversation with you, since we do political work together, and so I am writing to you:

First point: Regarding the National Committee’s letter, I hope you understand that my calling someone a [i]chavista[/i] reflects a political evaluation, based on my experience in the WIL. The forces in our movement that dictated that Chavez and chavismo be shoved down our throats for the last 15 months are, surely, supporters of Chavez, which is what a [i]chavista[/i] is.

Second point: Now an interesting thing has happened. Our branch called for the organization of a workers’ party, independent of the bourgeoisie, in Venezuela, and that idea, the necessity for workers to be politically independent of the exploiting class, an elementary, yet terribly important principle of Marxism, was voted down by the WIL leadership, with the support of the delegate from the International Secretariat.

A few months later, Oscar Chirino, a prominent leader of the UNT union federation, organized a meeting in Venezuela of some hundreds of workers to plan for the construction of a workers’ political party. As you may know from marxist.com, Chirino recently addressed a meeting in Britain, and made the following point:

“In briefly touching upon the question what the perspective is for the Venezuelan revolution, Orlando answered that he is utterly convinced that if Venezuela does not go beyond capitalism, the problems of the workers cannot be resolved. In that sense he agrees with president Chavez. However, he concluded that one thing is certainly needed to accomplish that goal: a revolutionary party capable of transforming society for the benefit of mankind.” (From marxist.com today.)

So, Cde Chirino is right, and we were right, and the national and international CMI leadership, in voting against our branch’s resolution were not only mistaken, they repudiated an important tenet of Marxism, the necessity of the political independence of our class.

Third point: I understand that you disagree with my contention that CMI’s position on Cuba has changed. In your opinion, I think, CMI has the same position it had previously, only expressed with different slogans now. I think I can prove to you that the politics of CMI regarding Cuba actually have changed.

On June 9, 2005, Jordi Martin, of the CMI International Secretariat wrote the following to Walter Lippmann, a fanatical f[i]idelista[/i] on the Marxmail list,

“As for whether I am in favour of the overthrow of Castro, it is really bad for you to say that, and I am sure it can only be the result of writing in a haste and under the effects of the heat in Havana. You know very well what my position is, because I specifically discussed this point with you in Havana a few months ago. In Cuba there is a double danger of capitalist restoration: the one that comes from outside and the one that comes from within. Castro is against the restoration of capitalism and therefore I do not advocate the overthrow of Castro. I hope this is clear enough for you and that you will not repeat this allegation.”

So, Jordi is now against the call for political revolution. Notice, he did not say, “I never advocated the overthrow of Castro.” No, everything is in the framework of the period since the International Executive Committee meeting in early 2005. So there actually has been a profound change; in abandoning the call for workers’ political revolution against a Stalinist bureaucracy, the CMI leadership has turned its back on a fundamental, distinctive element of Trotskyism. Who else calls for workers’ struggle against the bureaucracy in order to preserve and extend revolutionary conquests? Just us, the Trotskyists.

So the leadership really voted against Marxism and is now in the process of abandoning Trotskyism. I would suggest to you that the CMI leadership has far more serious political problems than their notion that I don’t like them :o) . . .

Anyway, warm comradely regards

[September 19, 2005]

Workers Action fuses with the WIL, Part 1

Workers Action, the US section of the CRCI, the international tendency led by the Partido Obrero of Argentina, has fused with the Workers International League, the WIL, which is the US section of the international tendency founded by Ted Grant after he abandoned the world Trotskyist movement. The fusion was announced on the Workers Power website http://www.workersaction.org/

It is obvious from what the Workers Action comrades write that they have serious illusions about the WIL.

For instance, the Workers Action comrades express their belief the world is now entering a revolutionary period, while it is well-known that the Grantists have believed that for decades. That is, for the Grantists, revolutionary crises are impending in every country, at all times. This is an almost metaphysical given for Grantists, their constant position for a very long time, and it differs radically from a judgment based on facts that would suggest the world is now on the verge of revolution.

The complete lack of reality in WIL's perspectives can be judged from what the WIL leadership writes about the US working class: The editorial, “Sharp, Sudden Changes,” (Socialist Appeal, 20, September-October, 2005, 2) deals with the “rapidly changing consciousness” of US workers, about whom it is claimed, “Over the last five years, millions have begun to question the very system” they live under. In reality, George Bush won the 2004 US presidential election. If “millions” “have begun to question the system,” surely there would have been some kind of mass break from the interchangeable Democratic and Republican parties. There was none. Describing the US, the editorial anticipates “sharp, sudden changes” in the “consciousness of millions,” who are forced “to seek an alternative” to capitalism. Again, what is the basis for this claim?

The vote for the Green Party fell from 2.7 million in 2000 to just over 100,000 in 2004. Does that denote increasing radicalization of US workers? Of course not. The profoundly reactionary thinking of most of the US population comes from the absence of a revolutionary workers’ party and is a byproduct of the destruction of the Socialist Party and the Communist Party through state terror carried out by the US government, together with the pervasive influence of the bourgeois media.

A collapse of the US economy may well be the only thing that will lead to changing the consciousness of the working-class majority in the US. The notion that consciousness will change automatically, without the intervention of a revolutionary party, is one of the most curious features of WIL ideology. Such a change in consciousness, one that would lead workers to reject the venal, treacherous Democrats, is nowhere in evidence among US workers at the moment,
even though most issues of Socialist Appeal (SA) anticipate the imminent apocalyptic breakdown of capitalism: “Capitalism: War, Crisis and Instability” (SA 19, July/August 2005), “2005: A World in Turmoil” (SA 16, January/February 2005), “2004: A Year of Elections, Revolutions, War, and Unemployment” (SA 12, April/May 2004), and so forth. In the WIL, a class analysis has been replaced by something like religious faith in revolution just-around-the-corner.

This evaluation is confirmed by looking at the World Perspectives document by the Grantist International Executive Committee, August, 2005: “We've entered the most turbulent period in world history. One shock after another is hitting the system; there's an enormous ferment. We see a questioning of the capitalist system itself. There is enormous volatility in the world economy. . . . The entire international situation is in a fragile state, moving in the direction of an economic crisis which could be as bad as the early 1970s - the rise in oil prices could be the detonator/catalyst. . . . Revolution is spreading like wildfire. The objective conditions are mature. . . . It is possible for workers to come to power without [a] revolutionary party . . . We need to start with a focus on the general situation of the epoch: the beginning of the world revolution . . . . ‘What does this all mean?’ It is nothing less than the impasse of capitalism on a world scale. . . . Unemployment in Iran is on the rise and the economy in trouble. Revolutionary events are on the horizon.”

The definition of revolution in the WIL, where it refers to any surface motion, like a demonstration against higher fuel prices in Nigeria, or a bus strike in Iran, differs radically from Leninism, where revolution is the concrete, visible act by which an exploited class overthrows its exploiters, by smashing the state machine that guarded and guaranteed exploitation.

In Leninism, revolution can be said to occur visibly, on a certain date. In the politics of the WIL, revolution is invariably a process, which conveniently defies specificity; one is never allowed to draw up a balance sheet on the accomplishments of a "process." "Revolution" approaches being anything that the needs of the WIL leadership dictate. The WIL leradership can flatter a nationalist politician in a developing country by talking about "revolution" that nationalist leader is allegedly heading. Impending revolution is the condition in nearly all places at the present and has been for many years, almost since the appearance of Grantism in the 1940's. "Revolution," as invoked by the WIL leadership, is used to hide the deficient, non-working class nature of movements the WIL supports.

It also serves to obscure the character of a period in history. The WIL leaadership speaks of the "Bolivarian revolution," for instance, when actually Venezuela is passing through a period of mass political awareness and activism. The role of chavismo in this period, and the goal of Chavez, is to preserve capitalist domination, just as Roosevelt did through the New Deal of the 1930's. Revolution has nothing to do with it.

The comrades of the ex-Workers Action refer to the identity of their views on Cuba with those of the Grantists. Trotsky' held that either the workers would smash the Stalinist bureacracy of the USSR through political revolution, to ensure the survival of the revolution, or there would be a capitalist restoration. Abandoning Trotskyism, both the ex-members of Workers Action and the leadership of the WIL have convinced themselves that self-reform by the Cuban Stalinist bureaucracy is realistic, that the Cuban bureaucracy will introduce organs of workers' democracy whose historical mission will be to put the bureacracy out of business and thereby save the conquests of the Cuban revolution. There is a saying, "I was born at night, but not last night," that applies to this claim by the WIL.

[To be continued]

Life Among the Grantists: Some comments about Argentina and CMI

Comment: What follows is a post from May 28, 2005, about the politics of the Grantist Workers International League and its international tendency, then known as CMI. Today, discussion of the activities of the Grantists in Argentina is largely moot, since, as of January, 2006, there was only one remaining Grantist in all of Argentina. But the facts related below retain their relevance, since the Grantist international leadership stillwants to send comrades into pro-capitalist ruling parties like the PJ in Argentina. Grantist, of course, refers to Ted Grant, founder of the tendency and a life-long enthusiast for the British Labour Party, an enthusiasm the Grantists still cultivate.

* * *

The CMI, Grantist, leadership has revealed that the youth of the Argentinian section of our movement are to be sent into the PJ. This was first announced at the 2004 National Congress of the WIL in Providence and then confirmed by Sewell at the recent 2005 WIL National Congress.

So, once again, our comrades will be supporting a bourgeois political party, as in Pakistan and Mexico, with the difference that the PJ is a ruling party, whose politicians are actively enforcing IMF austerity against the workers and the poor of Argentina, so, for CMI comrades it is a question not just of entering a bourgeois party, which would be bad enough, but of giving political support to a bourgeois ruling party. Can anyone imagine Marx, or Lenin, or Trotsky, telling revolutionary youth to adhere to a bourgeois ruling party?

All this is such a mess and so gravely compromises the claim of CMI that its politics represent Marxism. The demand that we raised at the last [2005] WIL National Congress, "Break with the bourgeoisie!" retains its relevance. To agree with the CMI leadership today, one has to ignore the fundamental content of Marxism.

"Co-management" in Venezuela = Union-Busting and Increased Exploitation of Workers

Much has been made recently of "co-management" in Venezuela. Jonah Goldin has contributed important facts to the discussion on "co-management" in a recent article. (1)

At Cadafe, the Venezuelan state electricity utility, after three years of "co-management," the workers have only 2 seats on a 5-member "coordinating committee," and while the "coordinating committee" can make recommendations to the bourgeois-government bureaucrat from the Ministry of Energy, who is the president of Cadafe, the bureaucrat/president is under no compulsion to follow their recommendations. Angel Navas, a trade union leader at Cadafe, said: “When we began pushing for the concrete elaboration of co-management . . . we provoked the rejection of supposed representatives of the state who refused to share power with the workers.”(1) Resistance on the part of "representatives of the state" simply confirms that the Venezuelan state truly is bougeois.

Venepal, the state paper enterprise, was purchased by the Venezuelan government at full market value, paid to the former owners, so that nationalization of the enterprise was not so much an expropriation as a purchase. Half of Venepal was then slated to be run on the basis of "co-management," between the workers and the (bourgeois) Venezuelan state. Workers in Venepal are now grouped into a cooperative to run the enterprise, thereby turning the 800 Venepal workers into capitalists, who stand to pocket tax-exempt profits from the enterprise. Another aspect of the cooperative nature of Venepal is that, according to one member of the plant's directorate, unions are no longer needed at Venepal. In other words, Venezuelan "co-management" apparently entails eliminating unions. (1)

At the state-run aluminum plant Alcasa, union leader Trino Silva has said that “What we need first is a factory that is productive. Today the company is becoming productive, but it must not only be productive, but also profitable." (1) Under "state-worker co-management, a system of shared management between state representatives and workers," workers at Alcasa now have the privilege of electing a manager and two assistants to enforce the speedup in production. (2)

The claim has been made that "co-management" cogestion is more or less the equivalent of "workers' control" control obrero. But this is obviously not true. Lenin's "Draft Regulations on Workers' Control" make this quite clear: "Workers' control over the production, storage, purchase and sale of all products and raw materials shall be introduced in all industrial, commercial, banking, agricultural and other enterprises . . . Workers' control shall be exercised by all the workers and office employees of an enterprise, either directly, if the enterprise is small enough to permit it, or through their elected representatives, who shall be elected immediately at general meetings. . . . The elected representatives shall be given access to all books and documents and to all warehouses and stocks of materials, instruments and products, without exception. . . . The decisions of the elected representatives of the workers and office employees are binding upon the owners of enterprises and may be annulled only by trade unions and their congresses." (3)

Where are union-busting and speedup, features of Venezuelan "co-management," to be found in the Leninist concept of workers' control? "Co-management" is merely an attempt by the exploiters to make workers enforce their own exploitation. One should remember that making an agreement with the bosses is not a good idea.

(1) http://www.monthlyreview.org/0605gindin.htm
(2) http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1407
(3) http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/oct/26.htm

Venezuela: "Nationalization" of failed enterprises

The following news item, from last year, comes to us courtesy of the Marxmail list. Two tomato processing plans, both owned by an imperialist enterprise in the US. Guess which one the chavistas seized.

Seizing Heinz ketchup-chavista style

Posted on Tue, Sep. 06, 2005

Heinz Venezuela seeks takeover clarity
Associated Press

CARACAS, Venezuela - A Venezuelan subsidiary of U.S.-based food maker H.J. Heinz Co. on Tuesday asked the government to clarify a decision to seize one of its tomato processing plants.

Alimentos Heinz CA, which makes Heinz ketchup, said the government never notified the company of any plans to take over the plant.

The governor of eastern Monagas state, Jose Gregorio Briceno, ordered troops to seize the plant, aiming to protect it from looters and eventually put it to use because it has been idle for years, spokeswoman Angelica Rivero said Monday. It was not immediately clear when the plant was seized.

"We hope the reasons for these actions are clarified since the company has received no notice from the authorities about the intervention/expropriation," Alimentos Heinz said in a statement Tuesday.

The company said the government's "social objectives cannot stand above the law."

The plant was not functioning because the market demand and the price were not enough to make it feasible to keep the unit running, the company said. An official at the Pittsburgh-based food company said the move will not affect Heinz's ability to do business in Venezuela.

"Heinz has a major plant in Venezuela employing 700 people that is not affected by this action. We see this as a local issue," said Ted Smyth, chief administrative officer.

He said the company was awaiting the government's next step regarding the plant, which hadn't been used for at least eight years and never employed more than 50 people.

Officials were expected to expropriate the plant, a move that would require the Venezuelan National Assembly to declare the property to be of "public interest."

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has said the government may expropriate the property of companies whose factories are idle or partially paralyzed in order to put them back to work.

So far this year, the government has expropriated the assets of a failed paper company and an industrial valve maker.