Welcome PSUV: But What about the 'New' Party of the Working Class of Venezuela
Classes, and persons too, feel the need of a party out of various reasons, and various situations compel them to think of having a party, some of which may appear strange. The working class needs its own party to lead it for its struggle for socialism ? in the courses of a socialist revolution, the transition period ? i.e., the dictatorship of proletariat ? ultimately to reach the goal of a classless society, socialism, where classes have ?withered? away, and so will be the fate of the party. [For the sake of simplicity, we are not distinguishing here the 1st and 2nd phases of socialism, and that is out of the ambit of the present topic too.] Working class feels this facing the regime that exploits and oppresses them and other toiling people, a system to change which they need to fight a political battle, and that throws up the necessity of the class party of the proletariat.
Our Venezuelan president Hugo Ch?vez had told his realisation frankly, though that may sound strange to advanced class-conscious workers. We are quoting that often quoted lines that appeared in so many pro-Venezuelan regime [or process] sites from the website of the famous Hands Off Venezuela campaign. ?Human beings are transitory,? he said. ?The party must be eternal, the most powerful revolutionary motor.? Chavez recalled his recent visit to Havana and that Castro had explained why he (Castro) can die and the Cuban Revolution will continue. On the other hand, Castro apparently said that without Chavez the Venezuelan ?revolution would be carried away in the wind.? ?I realize that unfortunately he is right,? said Chavez on Saturday. ?If I die this revolution will be carried away in the wind because we don?t have a party, a big political machine, a big political direction,? he said. And so he moved towards the formation of United Socialist Party of Venezuela [PSUV].
The workers and other toiling people of Venezuela could assure Ch?vez that he didn?t need to worry about the future of ?Venezuelan revolution?, as course of history in general and social movements too are decided by so many complex things and obviously not by any particular individual, though of course individuals have very important parts to play in setting direction of certain social movements, which in turn influence the course of history to some extent. The Russian or Chinese revolution did not ?carried away in the wind? simply by the death of important leaders like say, Lenin, or, Mao. Rather, history teaches us that the working class couldn?t hold the real ?prime motors?, state and the class party of the proletariat, at their control; things slipped out of their hands. And only at a later stage the ?seemingly? or so-called ?actually existing? socialism-s or socialist states crumbled down, roughly around 1990-91, and things became clear almost to the last person of the class that the first offensive of the international socialist movement (1848 ? ????) was defeated. Not a single communist party, the class party of the proletariat, worthy of its name is there.
Bourgeois pundits roared gleefully ?the end of history?, but unluckily for them history only chose an ?un-thought-of? path. After a spell of frustration, passivity, disarrayed-ness, helplessness, etc the workers are slowly but steadily coming back in the arena. This is happening in spite of that defeat, in spite of absence of a true party of the class. A reawakening is taking place objectively through the new struggles the workers are launching, the new organisations that are being built up from below, and most importantly, by their rejection of and rebellion against the ?old? betrayers, old rotten parties still bearing the names of ?communist party?, old trade unions, old lines, practices, etc. This objectivity is manifest in different ways in different places; naturally one shouldn?t look for any uniformity in the birth, springing up of new sprouts. Movement, at this stage, evidently will follow previously uncharted paths; as the old communist movement never faced this situation we should not expect to find out suitable quotations from suitable leaders either to find out all our lines in clear cut terms or in support of some approach of one?s choice. Rather we have the time-tested methods of scientific socialism like ?concrete analysis of concrete conditions?.
In our previous article on Venezuela (written in Aug 06 and in print version ?Issue ? Nov 06?, link: here) we mentioned the absence of a revolutionary working class party in Venezuela as a weakness. We also mentioned the comment of veteran leader Guillermo Ponce in 2003 in this respect (Revista Punto Final 14-28 May, 2003 issue no: 539, to be found at http://www.puntofinal.cl/) and also the inadequacy of the comment. We didn?t know by then any other comment of any other Venezuelan leader on this urgent matter and that?s our limitation; later we came to know the point already raised by UNT (C-CURA) leader Orlando Chirino in his interview with ?International Socialism? posted on June 1, 2006, where he said, ?WE are absolutely convinced that workers not only have the challenge to construct a powerful centred union, but also have to construct a political instrument that fights consciously for a true programme of socialism in the country, for the actual participation of the base, developing social control and participating in the management of companies. We believe that like this, just as the bourgeoisie have their parties, reformism also has its parties for example, the so called parties of the Block of Change that are now rejected by the majority of the people, we believe that the workers have the legitimate right to create, without any attempt at self-proclamation, the necessity to construct our own party,?? (http://www.isj.org.uk/?id=204). Anyway, after the call of Ch?vez we saw a lot of enthusiasm in Venezuela and in the international ?left? media too regarding PSUV.
Incidentally, while trying to form an opinion on the PSUV, its creation process, its probable programme, etc relevant things one must take into account ? first of all the current international situation, including the already mentioned Defeat of The First Offensive of the International Working Class Movement, the absence of party of the proletariat, any international centre etc with which we were accustomed in the previous era, say, in the time of 3rd international, etc ? and secondly the objectivity of the Venezuelan movement itself. We tried to approach that in our Nov 06 article.
Sadly we are seeing so many discussions, several lengthy articles? approving the PSUV and the process of its formation without taking all these factors into account! On the other hand, several articles critical to the PSUV are also there available in the web world which are not taking these factors into consideration (ranging from ?Political Parties and Social Change in Venezuela? by Sujatha Fernandes, ZNet to Venezuela: ?The Revolution In The Balance? by CWG inhttp://indymedia.org.nz/newswire/display/73433/index.php, different angles of criticism are available)!
And in the mist created by the defeat and the sheer pressure of many prejudices and misconceptions inherited from the past movement it is all the more necessary to ?rehabilitate? the correct revolutionary essence of Marxism, correct revolutionary conceptions. ?Socialism? is taken to mean whatever one likes or thinks although in a totally wrong, non-Marxist way! As for example we cite only two ? (1) Nationalisation is almost everywhere or often confused with socialisation, and nationalisation plus a ?socialist? party in power is taken to be socialism; (2) socialism ? as a movement ? is assumed to be as if a ?non-class? movement or movement of a heterogeneous ?people?. Of course if ?people? means ?workers, peasants and other toiling masses? then peasants and other toiling masses can be won over towards socialism through prolonged struggle and endeavour of the working class ? this is what Lenin taught us. But socialism, if that means scientific socialism, is essentially a principle of the working class, and only working class, as this is the only class which out of its objective existence strive for a classless society, fight for abolition of classes. Orlando also gave a hint of it in although an oblique manner in his recent interview when he said: ?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 behaviour of workers is different from that of peasants, communities, or students.? (Interview with Orlando, Aporrea.org, see http://www.newsocialist.org/index.php?id=1307, or www.venezuelanalysis.com.) Then, about that ?Nationalisation? and socialism: Marx and Engels wrote about non-proletarian varieties of socialism-s at their time in the Communist Manifesto, Engels criticised such absurdities in his Anti D?hring, and advanced elements of the working class must also reckon that and apply their analytical tool in present conditions.
But given the international scenario including the defeat of the old movement and the Venezuelan objectivity of struggle ? if a party like PSUV emerges, and that is likely to emerge with ?millions of members? at this present state of affairs, what the class-conscious Venezuelan workers should do? And what about Ch?vez? call of unity where erstwhile parties/groups will have to dissolve their separate organisational existence during their joining this party? This again tells us to do objective analysis of the situation. We presented the problematic only partially here, and hope to deal with the questions at length in the next issue.
Comments:
No Comments for View