Chavez is a social democrat!
international |
miscellaneous |
opinion/analysis
Monday December 10, 2007 18:17
by Bob - ...
Redefining social democracy
Chavez...Venezuela's answer to Ruairí Quinn
At this stage, we all know what the craic is with Venezuela…We’ve also had many a discussion on social democracy vs socialism……But what would you say if I claimed that Chavez was a socialist in the social democratic tradition….Or, to put it another way, a social democrat in the socialist tradition!!!
Social-democratic politics tend to be understood as seeking to implement reforms that alleviate some of the worst aspects of the capitalist system, to the benefit of ordinary people, without breaking with capitalism itself.
Certainly, the Chavez government has implemented a wide number of social democratic reforms however, is he really trying to do away with capitalism completely.
If one looks at the economics section of the official Venezuelan embassy in the US, one finds a message that is far from a traditional, socialist point of view.
According to the website:
“Venezuela has an enormous potential for development and investment. It is an ideal site for international business operations due to the combination of its proximity to Latin American and Caribbean markets and its relatively short distance from North America and Europe…Opportunities for investment and trade in Venezuela are abundant in sectors such as oil and gas production and distribution, electrical distribution, petrochemicals, aluminum, steel, agriculture, tourism and consumer products and services, to name but a few.”
At the moment, Chavez seems to be in the middle of a genuine social-democratic upheaval, attempting to provide proper welfare, health care and education in a democratic, economically sustainable way…
Unlike some “social democratic” elements of parties such as the British Labour Party or the SDP, who would love to implement brutal anti-worker policies at the drop of the hat if they could get away with it, Chavez is acting like a true social democrat.
Chavez is a true social democrat, who rejects the new, artificial model of social democracy that seeks to subordinate struggles by workers to the interests of capital by promoting the idea of common interests between two fundamentally irreconcilable social forces — working people and the greedy.
Chavez is no trot! He is a proud social democrat/democratic socialist!!!
printable version
Digg this
del.icio.us
Furl
Reddit
Technorati
Facebook
Gab
Twitter
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (3 of 3)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3What is this - some sort of co-option job for Labour hacks to make themselves feel good about themselves for a change? I think if you are looking for more run of the mill social democrats in Venezuela Carlos Andrés Pérez might be a sure safer bet, he was three term vice-president of the Socialist International, a predecessor of Chavez and way back in 2004 was happy enough to call for the violent over throwing of the Chavista regime - oh and he over saw a massacre of a few protesters back in '89 after an uprising against his free market reforms. And sure, wasn't this self same wee chap that Chavez had his original coup against?
Huzzah! Tis a social democrat beneath those neo-liberal clothing! What's your point with this posting? Now I'm no expert on Venezuela, hardly have a notion whats going on over there at all - but these sort of contributions that contend he is a trot, social democrat or neo-liberalist really say more about the sort of political games that are played between the various parties of the Irish left, their hangers on and some more obscure sects than shed light on events there. Wrap the red beret around me, boys.
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/601
So Chavez's predecessor Carlos Andrés Pérez is a member of the same Socialist International as the 26-County Labour Party. Small world.
Referring to the initial post, are there any socialists out there who still believe that socialism can be implemented by getting elected to a bourgeois parliament? I think everyone knows that there are limits to what Chavez can do, including Chavez himself, which is why such focus has been placed on the new United Socialist Party of Venezuela organising itself from the bottom up.
Like a lot of stuff on Venezuela, this article seems far too keen to force Chavez and the movement he heads into a neat little box drawn from past experience. I don’t think Chavez is either a Trotskyist or a social-democrat in the traditional sense. If you had to sum him up in a couple of sentences, I’d say he’s a reformist who started out with unusual determination to put his reform programme into practice, who didn’t allow himself to be blown off course when the privileged classes dug in their heels and tried to sabotage reform (unlike most social-democratic leaders who have been only too willing to throw in the towel at the first sign of difficulty). Along the way, Chavez has had to encourage a quasi-revolutionary mobilisation of his supporters, and the scale of that mobilisation has a radicalising logic of its own which has pushed his government further to the Left. How far Chavez is prepared to go, I don’t know.
Anyway, this is an article by Stuart Munckton of the Australian DSP, arguing that Chavez is actually putting the transitional programme of Leon Trotsky into practice – wouldn’t entirely agree with him, but I think it may be closer to the truth than this article’s take on things:
‘A common analysis of the politics of Chavez, the government he leads, and, in some cases, the broader revolutionary movement based on the impoverished, working people, is that they can be understood as “social democratic”. Social-democratic politics tend to be understood as seeking to implement reforms that alleviate some of the worst aspects of the profit-driven capitalist system, to the benefit of ordinary people, without breaking with capitalism itself.
Certainly, the Chavez government has implemented a wide number of reforms that in and of themselves don’t do away with capitalism — a system based on private ownership and control over the economy, run for profit and based on the exploitation of working people — but have still benefited the poor majority.
However, describing the process as social democratic misses the profoundly revolutionary nature of the struggle being led by Chavez (who in almost every speech he gives calls for the need to construct socialism and describes himself as the “subversive within Miraflores”, the presidential palace).’
http://www.greenleft.org.au/2007/727/37703
And a bit of shameless self-promotion – this was my two cents earlier in the year:
http://www.irishsocialist.net/publications_chavismo_the....html