---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Venezuelan
Trade Unionist Luis Primo To Speak In SF
March 25, 2006
Venezuelan trade unionist Luis Primo from the National Workers Union of
Venezuela will be speaking on Saturday March 25 at 7:00 PM at the ILWU Local 34
Hall, 4 Berry Street/Embarcadero (next to the baseball
stadium).
Sponsored by Hands Off Venezuela-SF Bay Area
Tel:
415-786-1680 Email: sfbay@xxxxxxxxx Web: www.ushov.org
San Francisco Hands Off Venezuela
is part of an international campaign to defend Venezuela from US interference,
aggression, and intervention.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Labor
Video Project
P.O. Box 720027
San Francisco, CA
94172
(415)282-1908
lvpsf@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.handsoffvenezuela.org/venezuela_from_below_dario_azzellini.htm
"Venezuela
from below" - The voice of the rank and file of the Bolivarian Revolution
By Jorge Martin -
www.handsoffvenezuela.org
Thursday, 30 June 2005
Dario
Azzellini is the co-director of the new documentary film ³Venezuela from below².
Jorge Martin interviewed him for Hands Off Venezuela about the film and his
views on the Bolivarian
revolution.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge
Martin How did you get the idea for the film and what are your links
with the Bolivarian revolution?
Dario Azzellini Well, since
the end of the 1980s I have been travelling and working in Latin America and I
became interested in its political and social issues. Furthermore, since I was
12 and I am now 37, I have been active in left wing politics. Before making the
documentary I visited Venezuela a few times. The thing that impressed me
most about the rank and file was their enormous strength and the capacity for
self organisation, of taking matters into their own hands, in the process of
transformation that is taking place in Venezuela.
There are a number of
very good documentaries on Venezuela, but what they are lacking (in the opinion
of myself and my co-director Oliver Ressler) was the people themselves
talking about how they see the process, how their lives have changed since the
beginning of the process. The other documentaries focus more on explaining
the framework and what happened during the coup. If there is anything
about the programmes that are being implemented it is usually politicians or
³representatives² who are talking about what is happening.
We wanted to
present the people themselves explaining what is happening, how they feel, how
they live, so that at least some of this strength for change coming from the
people can be conveyed. We also wanted to show that the people are very
conscious of what is happening. They know what they want and what needs to
be done, and that they do not need anybody to talk for them. They are
perfectly capable of talking themselves.
JM Yes, this is one of the
most striking things and in our opinion it is the aspect that defines a
revolution, precisely the fact that people have organised themselves in tens of
thousands of revolutionary organisations of different kinds, and have taken
their future into their own hands. This is what we found interesting in your
documentary; that it is based mainly on explaining the experiences of the rank
and file community, workers organisations and so on.
DA This is a
very important aspect. In fact, with all the different left wing organisations
that exist, each one with its own analysis of revolution, we were left with our
eyes open wide in amazement at what is happening in Venezuela. It is a process
that has to be organised in a concrete way, because it is not following any
preconceived analysis. We cannot forget that what saved the process, at the time
of the coup, at the time of the oil lock out, and in all decisive occasions in
which it was under threat, was the massive mobilisation of the rank and file in
a self organised way. This must not be underestimated. I think that in
this lies the only hope that the process will go forward, will deepen and
survive.
JM The other aspect which is shown clearly in the
documentary is the participation of the labour movement. There are interviews
about Venepal, the CNV, and the role of the oil workers in the defeat of the
bosses¹ lock-out.
DA Yes, this aspect is important too.
One of the central questions in a process of deep social transformation is that
of the ownership of the means of production. Who controls them? There has to be
redistribution of wealth but the problem must be dealt with at root level.
Therefore questions of land and labour are fundamental. They are not the only
ones. There are also the issues of the Indians, culture, community etc,
but if the question of the ownership and control over production is not dealt
with, there cannot be a genuine process of transformation. That is why it
is important to show the struggle of the occupied factories. We can also gauge
the capacity of a government that wants to be revolutionary from its ability to
respond to these demands of the workers and peasants.
JM We have also
seen with a lot of interest in the last few months in that Chavez has said
clearly that the problems of misery, inequality and poverty cannot be solved
within the framework of capitalism. He has pointed out that the path to be
taken is socialism and that a debate must be opened about socialism of the
21st century.
DA Well, of course, I have always
been convinced of this. Everything that has happened to date has increased my
confidence in Chavez. There is the skilful way in which he has led and
deepened the process, giving space to rank and file movements and always being
open to new ideas. Now we have to see how this debate about socialism is handled
in Venezuela.
We all know that it is a very broad movement, with sections
from the social democrat left to those openly identified with the revolutionary
left. I think these will make very interesting contributions. There have
been European leaders who have talked about a ³new socialism² who actually
embraced neo-liberalism. I do not think that this will be the case with Chavez
in Venezuela.
Indeed now that Chavez¹s position has been strengthened we
see how many, like Zapatero in Spain, recognising that Chavez is going to be
around for some time, are trying to influence this process with their own vision
of ³socialism².
I think it is also very interesting to observe that had
the declarations they are now making about socialism been made six years ago,
the process would have never been able to reach the point it is now.
What gives me a lot of confidence is that this is one of the few
processes I have known anywhere in the world that has actually deepened. It
started with promises far less radical. In the course of time it has
managed to deepen social transformation.
JM I think it was down to
their own experience. Chavez started with the idea of introducing a number of
social improvements, which were not necessarily very radical, but found open
opposition and even armed insurrection from the oligarchy and imperialism.
DA Of course, we can say that the first measures introduced by the
Chavez government were neither revolutionary nor communist, but rather of an old
social democratic kind (new social democracy does not even introduce reforms).
However this clashed with the empire, the multinationals and the IMF, who
thought that it already went too far.
I think this it is partly because
after the end of this clash opportunity for social democracy no longer existed.
Social democracy and reformism used to work because they ³threatened²
Capital. If the limited reform measures they proposed were not conceded
the movements could take a ³worse² path, like that of the Soviet Union (Let us
leave to one side our personal opinions about whether what was found in that
country was socialism or not). This ³threat² has no effect any more. It is
only too obvious that Capital is not the slightest bit interested in even the
smallest of reforms proposed by social democracy. The opportunity for
reformism has disappeared.
In the last few years the Venezuelan process
has also realised this. At the beginning, although they only attempted a few
reforms, they were attacked with all the violence and all the propaganda
apparatus of Capital, transnational companies and empire. Therefore they saw
they might just as well choose another path.
JM What do you think are
the main dangers that threaten the Bolivarian revolution now, internal and
external?
DA Starting with the external threats, I think they are, on
the one hand the danger of a contra. I do not think that in the short or
medium term there is any danger of direct intervention on the part of the US,
but what they are already doing, and this is going to increase, is building an
army of counter-revolutionaries, like the contras in
Nicaragua. (Today they have announced they have captures five
Colombian paramilitaries in the Amazonas). They do not aim for military victory,
but for political destabilisation. They would like to take this to the point
where the next elections gave people a choice between war and bourgeois
capitalism as against between a process of social transformation and bourgeois
capitalism.
They are going to activate groups from Colombia and will try
to infiltrate them into Venezuelan territory. They will have the support
of cattle ranch owners and landowners (particularly now that the government has
begun to expropriate and distribute land in a serious way). This will
build the army of contras.
They will also continue with their
propaganda campaign. Accion Democratica, I think, will go back to the political
arena, playing the role of a ³reasonable² opposition, ready to open a dialogue
with the government (so that it can influence it) and will receive the support
of international social democracy.
Another foreign threat is the
promotion and financing of the development of a regionalist movement in Zulia.
This is already being talked about and there are historical precedents for
it. Zulia is a region under opposition control. From the economic
point of view, it is one of the most important regions in the country, because
of its oil reserves and its geographically strategic position in the border with
Colombia.
Another danger I have already hinted at in relation to
Zapatero and international social democracy is that, having realised that they
cannot easily get rid of Chavez, they will try to give him ?the embrace of the
bear¹. They will penetrate the movement with their ³foundations² and advisors,
in order to divert the course of the process.
Fromthe internal
point of view I think that one of the main enemies of this process is
corruption. Amongst the politicians in Venezuela there are too many who jumped
on the bandwagon in order to get money and personal benefit. Everybody knows
this. Chavez himself has denounced it. There is a lot of corruption and there
are many people who cannot manage their roles, but who do not step aside for
fear of losing their element of power.
Another internal problem is the
need to give real power to the rank and file, to create peoples¹ power. There
are those within the bureaucratic structures who do not want to do this because
they know they will lose out personally. Therefore they are putting a
break on the process, against the pressure coming from below.
In general
terms I think that these are the dangers, difficulties and tasks that the
Venezuelan revolutionary process is facing in both the short and medium term.
There are other aspects which show positive development; the economy,
the beginning of the real land reform - there is a ministry of agriculture which
is finally carrying out what should have been started in 1999 (not by chance has
it been changed many times over). Also the government is progressively learning
how to do things. We should not forget that it was catapulted into power with
little previous experience of how to run things.
JM My last
question would be what you think are the main tasks of the international
solidarity movement? And what message would you give to the people who are
organised in Hands Off Venezuela, other solidarity organisations, international
Bolivarian Circles, etc.
DA I think there are different tasks. The
process in Venezuela survives because it has a very broad basis and this is
something from which we must learn. We might have different analyses but
we have to work together if we want to achieve something. I think that the
Venezuela solidarity movement has certain differences with the movement in
Nicaragua and El Salvador. Nicaragua had nothing, and the solidarity movement
had also to contribute from the purely economic point of view. In Venezuela we
can go back to the genuine meaning of solidarity, which is to develop ones¹ own
struggles in common with the struggles of others. It is a very political
solidarity, very political; a political exchange of discussions.
We need
to do a job of work in spreading information. We must clarify in Europe what is
happening in Venezuela. What is on the European news and in their media about
Venezuela has little to do with reality.
I think it is also very
important to penetrate further into academia. Although we have made
advances in the political field, the academic field is still very much dominated
by the right wing (if sometimes disguised as the left wing) and there are almost
no academics in Europe who have a positive vision, or even a correct appraisal
of the process taking place in Venezuela.
It is also important to get
this information to the population within the European trade unions. They
must understand what is happening in Venezuela and build direct links. Venezuela
is a very large and diverse country, and so anybody who is active in Europe, be
it an engineer, chemical trade unionist, university professor, student or
homosexual, can find a counterpart in Venezuela who is a part of the process.
It is important that Venezuela does not just become about Venezuela but
serves as an example for the rest of the world as well. Things are being done in
relation to health, social security and education, which those in Europe, in
richer countries, are being told are unaffordable. University fees are being
introduced ³because the state cannot pay for universities - they are too
expensive². They want to make us pay for health care ³because the state
cannot afford it², etc. Yet all the things said to be unaffordable in Europe are
being implemented in Venezuela despite the fact that it is a poorer country. It
is very important to explain this to unmask the whole lie of the neo-liberal
discourse in Europe.
JM Thank you very
much.
http://www.ressler.at/content/view/23/lang,en_GB/
Dario
Azzellini & Oliver Ressler, 67 min.
In Venezuela, a profound social
transformation identified as the
Bolivarian process has been underway since
Hugo Chávez's governmental
takeover in 1998. It concerns a broad process of
self organization,
from which has developed a progressive constitution, a
labor law, new
educational possibilities, and a number of further reforms for
the
impoverished majority of the population of what is potentially
a
wealthy state. The government's politics, which take an open
stance
against neo-liberalism, have experienced vehement rejection
from
Venezuela's major private industries and from the U.S., expressed
in
two attempted coups and boycotts. Nonetheless, Chávez and
his
government enjoy the trust of the majority of the population.
The
society is heavily politicized; many people who had never
before
thought of what they wanted to change are now a part of a
profound
transformation taking place in the country.
In the film
"Venezuela from Below," the true actors in the social
process are able to
speak: the grassroots. After an introduction by
philosopher Carlos Lazo,
workers from the oil company PDVSA in Puerto
La Cruz report how in 2002/2003
they protected the refinery from
breaking down during the oil sabotage, which
was pawned off as a
strike, and how they were able to reinstate oil
production. Several
farmers from a newly founded cooperative in Aragua report
on their
process of self organization, on the literacy campaign, and how
things
should continue. A women's bank project in Miranda and several
loan
recipients from Caracas' disadvantaged district, 23 de Enero,
present
their projects. Indígena community members near the Orinoco river
in
Bolívar speak about how their demands and struggles are reflected
in
the constitution and what has changed for them. Workers from
the
occupied National Valve Company in Los Teques and the paper
production
company Venepal in Carabobo - which was occupied by 350 workers
after
the owners drove it to bankruptcy, and which now, after a
partial
agreement, is running production again - speak about corrupt
unions,
labor control, and their struggles. Protagonists in the
revolutionary
movement Tupamaro, the cultural foundation Simón Bolívar, the
leftist
website
www.23.net, and the Bolivarian Circle Abrebrecha from
23 de
Enero report on their work and what has changed for them through
the
social revolutions.
They are the people of the grassroots and they
speak about what they
did and what they are doing, how they feel about the
Bolivarian
process, about their expectations and ideas. They see themselves
as
part of the process that is underway, but also problematize
numerous
points. The search for a social and economic model
beyond
neo-liberalism is no easy terrain; there are currently no
successful,
tested alternatives. The protagonists in the Bolivarian process
have,
however, set upon a path from which there is no return.
www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=1916
Venezuelan
Worker Controlled Factory Movement Demonstrates for more
Expropriations
Tuesday, Mar 14, 2006
By: Alex Holland Venezuelanalysis.com
Workers from several worker
control factories demonstrated for a more rapid pace with the takeover of idle
businesses. Workers from several worker control factories demonstrated for a
more rapid pace with the takeover of idle businesses. Credit: Alex Holland (Go
to web site to see photo.)
Caracas, Venezuela, 14 March 2006 The
Revolutionary Workers Front of Occupied and Co-managed Companies held its first
march today. One of the representatives of the Front, Luisana Ramirez, said they
want, "to unite the workers of all companies, to search for more worker control
and more government appropriation."
Less than 100 people started the
march at the occupied textile factory Sel-Fex in the La Bandera area of Caracas.
Workers from several occupied and worker-managed companies were involved.
The marchers went to the Venezuelan National Assembly to present a list
of demands. These included the government take-over of all occupied factories
such as Sel-Fex to allow for worker management.
The Revolutionary
Workers Front of Occupied and Co-managed Companies was formed on February 25.
The decision to form the front was taken by a meeting of all Venezuelan
factories either occupied or under a form of workers' control.
The future of the Bolivarian Revolution is Socialism, the
Front's manifesto says. The document says this socialism can be made by
government take-overs of basic Venezuelan industry and banks under workers'
control.
The manifesto of the Front highlights how Venezuelan President
Hugo Chavez said nearly 800 factories were suitable for expropriation and
workers' control in July 2005. The vast majority of these, "are still in the
hands of unproductive capitalists," the manifesto says.
The Front is
committed to help Chavez win December's presidential elections because he
supports workers control, the manifesto says. The document continues by saying
to end capitalism in Venezuela, "One man alone cannot drive the revolution.
Chavez needs the help of the working class."
Ramirez said
the front was created because those who want more workers' control felt the
government and the UNT, the pro-government trade union federation, are not doing
enough to make it happen.
Ramirez said the Ministry of Labour and
Ministry of Industry have people inside them opposed to the expansion of
workers' control who frustrate it. These people are often left over from the
pre-Chavez governments, Ramirez said.
The UNT is supportive of worker
control, "but in my opinion the UNT has problems organising and making decisions
because of internal divisions," said Ramirez. The Front representative said this
meant the UNT, "has not done enough to push for workers control."
The
march today was very small Ramirez recognised. The Front representative said,
"We are only 20 days old. This is a first small step." The Front will go out
into the country, use the media, organize in the street and the unions to make a
mass movement, Ramirez said.
Ramirez said, "We are on this march to
strengthen the struggle for the whole country." The marchers wanted the
government to take its claims of inclusive democracy seriously and make, "'the
parliament of the street' a reality."
Counter-Demonstration
At
the beginning of the march there was a counter-demonstration by a group of 15
Sel-Fex workers. They came into the occupied factory shouting, "We don't want
workers control. You don't represent us."
Ingrid Mireya D'Amico, a
Sel-Fex employee, said those who wanted the government to take over the factory
to allow for workers control were a minority. The majority wanted to end the
workers occupation and start work again with the private owner.
A
Sel-Fex trade unionist Candidas Sufonte said the factory had not properly paid
their benefits for months. The factory stopped production in August 2005 and did
not compensate the workers as they were contracted to.
Sufonte admitted those who want workers control at Sel-Fex
are only 20% of the overall workforce but a majority in the Sel-Fex union.
Sufonte said because the Sel-Fex factory stopped production it could be
appropriated according to Venezuelan law.
D'Amico said a new
investor in the company had said they would pay the workers some of their back
wages and reopen the factory if they ended the occupation. The majority of the
workers trusted this more than the government, D'Amico said.
Both sides
angrily said the others were liars. Three Police arrived after someone called
them saying they were disturbing the march. They asked the counter demonstration
to respect the march. All of the Sel-Fex workers, both for and against workers
control, told the Police to leave. Eventually the march left without further
problems.